Innocent shooting

[Jon L. Obscene]

The guy suspected to be a terrorist in London shot by armed police 5 times in the head.
Turned out he was innocent, saw it on the news last night but today I've been hearing people saying how it's really wrong and should never have happend etc.

Well I dunno about that, cos if you're being shouted at by armed police to stop of they WILL fire you would stop.
Why did the guy not stop? regardless of a crime he may of commited. At this time especially. Someone said that he may not have understood, again I dissagree. Anyone from anywhere would be able to understand that armed police are pointing guns at you and shouting, obviously they want you to stop.
Dunno, I'm a bit undecided on this one.
As I typing I'm thinking well maybe he thought they would'nt actually shoot, hmmm

So basically as question.....

Trigger happy mistake?

Or

Justified tradgedy?

Jonno :cool:

[manker]

The thing is that they were plain clothed officers. He was Brazillian so he might not have understood exactly what they were saying - the tube is a noisy place and I suspect lots of people would have been screaming. He may have thought they were just guys with guns and his instinct was to run.

The same officers had also been fed mis-information linking him with terrorists.

You have to think that maybe if these policemen had not been told that he had links to terrorist groups, maybe they wouldn't have shot him. It's difficult to tell.


A great deal of human error was involved with this and a life was lost. It's a tragedy, alright.

[Busyman]

Trigger happy mistake?

Or

Justified tradgedy?


However, if they shot him 5 times while pinned...that just sounds fucking criminal and the cops that shot him should be jailed.

The only thing I can think of is that they were afraid of him pulling a rip cord and they made him stop. :dry:

Either way, the fella was an idiot and I think he was there to test security.

I think he was linked to terrorists. Padded coat in July? How hot was it?

I wear a cut-off shirt to go to work and change when I get there, 'cause it's so hot......and this guy is wearing "extra layers to keep warm and shit.

[Busyman]

The thing is that they were plain clothed officers. He was Brazillian so he might not have understood exactly what they were saying - the tube is a noisy place and I suspect lots of people would have been screaming. He may have thought they were just guys with guns and his instinct was to run.

The same officers had also been fed mis-information linking him with terrorists.

You have to think that maybe if these policemen had not been told that he had links to terrorist groups, maybe they wouldn't have shot him. It's difficult to tell.


A great deal of human error was involved with this and a life was lost. It's a tragedy, alright.
I understand that the fella had been there for sometime working. Sounds like he lacked common sense. Padded coat? Did he have on a helmet too?

[Jon L. Obscene]

Well possibly he was linked to something but the fact remains he did'nt do as told when a shoot to kill policy is enforced atm.

Sad but justified.

And as for the coat, well it's actually one of the coldest july's on record in the uk. Whether is shit so the coat means nothing really, also lots of people where padded coats for fashion even when it's hot cos their stupid.

Jonno :cool:

[GepperRankins]

i think i've said in another thread. if someone in plain clothes points a gun at me i'd probably run. for all this guy knew he was being mugged.


he could have been a terrorist ready to blow

the police could have made their presence and intentions better known

[Jon L. Obscene]

The thing is that they were plain clothed officers. He was Brazillian so he might not have understood exactly what they were saying - the tube is a noisy place and I suspect lots of people would have been screaming. He may have thought they were just guys with guns and his instinct was to run.

The same officers had also been fed mis-information linking him with terrorists.

You have to think that maybe if these policemen had not been told that he had links to terrorist groups, maybe they wouldn't have shot him. It's difficult to tell.


A great deal of human error was involved with this and a life was lost. It's a tragedy, alright.

Good points, it's all a question of if's and why's. I did'nt know they were plain clothed, the pics in the paper showed them as armed police with flack jackets and stuff altho I may have read that wrong was spose to be working lol. If they were plain clothed then it throws another ingriedient into the mix and has started me thinking again. , but yeah it was a tradgedy, but the papers today and like I said general opinion seems to want to jump on the police for this.
Thats whats bugging me, had he been a terrorist they would have been hero's.

I still say altho sad I don't think the officers acted inapropriatly.

Jonno :cool:

[manker]

The thing is that they were plain clothed officers. He was Brazillian so he might not have understood exactly what they were saying - the tube is a noisy place and I suspect lots of people would have been screaming. He may have thought they were just guys with guns and his instinct was to run.

The same officers had also been fed mis-information linking him with terrorists.

You have to think that maybe if these policemen had not been told that he had links to terrorist groups, maybe they wouldn't have shot him. It's difficult to tell.


A great deal of human error was involved with this and a life was lost. It's a tragedy, alright.
I understand that the fella had been there for sometime working. Sounds like he lacked common sense. Padded coat? Did he have on a helmet too?Maybe it looked like it might rain later. Perhaps he thought he looked good in it. Perhaps he needed extra pockets to carry bits and bobs to work, like tools and stuff.

I really don't know but wearing a big coat in summer isn't so unusual as to warrant being the deciding factor to end a person's life.

[Busyman]

Well possibly he was linked to something but the fact remains he did'nt do as told when a shoot to kill policy is enforced atm.

Sad but justified.

And as for the coat, well it's actually one of the coldest july's on record in the uk. Whether is shit so the coat means nothing really, also lots of people where padded coats for fashion even when it's hot cos their stupid.

Jonno :cool:
How cold was it?

[Busyman]

I understand that the fella had been there for sometime working. Sounds like he lacked common sense. Padded coat? Did he have on a helmet too?Maybe it looked like it might rain later. Perhaps he thought he looked good in it. Perhaps he needed extra pockets to carry bits and bobs to work, like tools and stuff.

I really don't know but wearing a big coat in summer isn't so unusual as to warrant being the deciding factor to end a person's life.
Agreed. Big coats in the summer must be a usual thing over there. :huh: ...and it must not be as hot as it is here...we push 100 degrees.

Cops were plain clothed too. Another monkey wrench.

I guess it was like, "Who the fuck are they?"

[manker]

Cops were plain clothed too. Another monkey wrench.

I guess it was like, "Who the fuck are they?"Yeah, that's how I see it too.

Also, the police followed him from his front door, when he took a 15 minute bus journey and on his walk to the tube station.

If the mis-information about terrorist links plus the coat was making them worry - why did they let him get to the tube station before they told him to stop :blink:

[GepperRankins]

i don't think the police officers are to blame, but the people who suggested they go plain clothes and the people said this guy was suspected terrorist with seemingly no evidence to back this

[JPaul]

It's very difficult to answer this. However if pushed I have to say tragic loss of life, but with the current climate it's hard to say that the Police should have reacted differently. Particularly if they followed all the relevant protocols.

If they had intelligence that he was associated to terrorism and they identified themselves, but he ran away, onto a tube train I don't see what else they could have done. re the many bullets to the head, I believe the idea is that unless they are certain he is dead then he still presents a risk to the public. In such a situation "shoot to kill" is the only option. (When dealing with terrorists the SAS never take prisoners)

Had they not fired and he had exploded a bomb, killing more members of the public they would have been damned even more.

[Busyman]

Cops were plain clothed too. Another monkey wrench.

I guess it was like, "Who the fuck are they?"Yeah, that's how I see it too.

Also, the police followed him from his front door, when he took a 15 minute bus journey and on his walk to the tube station.

If the mis-information about terrorist links plus the coat was making them worry - why did they let him get to the tube station before they told him to stop :blink:
Now THAT'S fucking stupid. When it comes down to it, the officers (or decision makers) actually endangered lives.

OMG I'm flip-flopping!!! :ohmy:

[Busyman]

It's very difficult to answer this. However if pushed I have to say tragic loss of life, but with the current climate it's hard to say that the Police should have reacted differently. Particularly if they followed all the relevant protocols.

If they had intelligence that he was associated to terrorism and they identified themselves, but he ran away, onto a tube train I don't see what else they could have done. re the many bullets to the head, I believe the idea is that unless they are certain he is dead then he still presents a risk to the public. In such a situation "shoot to kill" is the only option. (When dealing with terrorists the SAS never take prisoners)

Had they not fired and he had exploded a bomb, killing more members of the public they would have been damned even more.
Why would they not stop him before getting to the train station then? :dry:

[Jon L. Obscene]

I really don't know but wearing a big coat in summer isn't so unusual as to warrant being the deciding factor to end a person's life.

I have to agree with that 100%, like I said, some people wear them for fasion all year round.
And to answer you BM, in my area on that day it was about 18-20c.

This whole plain clothed thing has thrown me, I did'nt know that.

Did they try to arrest him first? was he aware they were police?
Had they aproached him showing him ID?

Jonno :cool:

[JPaul]

It's very difficult to answer this. However if pushed I have to say tragic loss of life, but with the current climate it's hard to say that the Police should have reacted differently. Particularly if they followed all the relevant protocols.

If they had intelligence that he was associated to terrorism and they identified themselves, but he ran away, onto a tube train I don't see what else they could have done. re the many bullets to the head, I believe the idea is that unless they are certain he is dead then he still presents a risk to the public. In such a situation "shoot to kill" is the only option. (When dealing with terrorists the SAS never take prisoners)

Had they not fired and he had exploded a bomb, killing more members of the public they would have been damned even more.
Why would they not stop him before getting to the train station then? :dry:

I don't know

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41333000/gif/_41333933_stockwell_station_6inf416.gif

1: Jean Charles de Menezes leaves a house under surveillance and arrives at Stockwell station
2: Witnesses say he vaults the automatic ticket barriers and heads for the platforms
3: He then ran down an escalator after being approached by up to 20 plain-clothed police officers and tried to board a train
4: He apparently refuses to obey police instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead.


EDIT - Sorry Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm)

[GepperRankins]

as far as i know they pulled a gun on him and shouted for him to get down. he legged it and tripped up. where they shot him.


whatever the story is. it's a good way of getting us all to listen to the cops http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/icke.gif

[Snee]

I really don't know but wearing a big coat in summer isn't so unusual as to warrant being the deciding factor to end a person's life.

I have to agree with that 100%, like I said, some people wear them for fasion all year round.
And to answer you BM, in my area on that day it was about 18-20c.

If he was Brasilian or something, and thus used to somewhat higher temperatures, wearing the coat made perfect sense.

WRT the rest, I say it was a victory for the terrorists, not a big one tho', but I bet they'd be happy with having caused this.

[DanB]

I say it was justified.

I'd not be too upset if there was more

[DanB]

They followed him and challenged him, he refused to stop and legged it, therefore suspecting he was a suicide bomber they took him out, seems fair enough to me

[JPaul]

They followed him and challenged him, he refused to stop and legged it, therefore suspecting he was a suicide bomber they took him out, seems fair enough to me
Other than the phrase "took him out" I tend to agree.

[Busyman]

It seems they were justified (as long as they identified themselves. However, I still don't get the "we let him close to the station" idiocy.

When did they realize "hey let's question this guy"?

I don't mind extra security but be fucking smart about it.

We had police with dogs on our subway platforms and everyone saw them and walked by like it was nothing. We don't mind it....at all.

[DanB]

Apparently it was when he headed for the station and went in that things stepped up a level, it then went form tailing and arresting to possibly watching the guy blow up a tube train.

We have had armed police at our airposts for years and everyone gets on with it too Busy

[manker]

Apparently it was when he headed for the station and went in that things stepped up a level, it then went form tailing and arresting to possibly watching the guy blow up a tube train.

We have had armed police at our airposts for years and everyone gets on with it too BusyYou don't think that before attempting to apprehend him, maybe they should have positioned themselves inbetween him and the entrance to the station. So that he couldn't have run into such a crowded place.

Seems logical to me.

They probably didn't want to let him know that they were tailing him prior to that but with the information they thought they knew about him, letting him get on a crowded bus was bad enough. Particularly when one was blown up a couple of weeks ago.

All the justification of protecting the people in the tube station kinda falls apart when you look at it that way.

[Busyman]

Apparently it was when he headed for the station and went in that things stepped up a level, it then went form tailing and arresting to possibly watching the guy blow up a tube train.

We have had armed police at our airposts for years and everyone gets on with it too BusyYou don't think that before attempting to apprehend him, maybe they should have positioned themselves inbetween him and the entrance to the station. So that he couldn't have run into such a crowded place.

Seems logical to me.

They probably didn't want to let him know that they were tailing him prior to that but with the information they thought they knew about him, letting him get on a crowded bus was bad enough. Particularly when one was blown up a couple of weeks ago.

All the justification of protecting the people in the tube station kinda falls apart when you look at it that way.
;)

[DanB]

I dare say if they had had suspicions when he was on the bus they would have dealt with him too.

Bah, 1 down X00 to go

[manker]

I dare say if they had had suspicions when he was on the bus they would have dealt with him too.What extra suspicions did they have in the short space of time he left the bus til when he walked toward the tube station? The fella was on his way to work. They would have known he had to get the tube as well as the bus, he'd been under surveillance for weeks.


Bah, 1 down X00 to goWhat have you got against Brazilian electricians :lol:

[DanB]

They can't wire for shit :dry:

thats probably whyt hey didn't go off :lol: :pinch:

[MCHeshPants420]

I think, to the police, this guy wasn't that important until he started to flee. So he wasn't important enough to stop him from getting on a bus or getting near a tube station. He was, perhaps, a potential lead who may not even have been followed up on if things had gone differently.

However, as soon as he started to flee he became a major threat. He went from someone who might have a connection to "OMG this guy might have a bomb" in a small space of time. I don't agree with what happened but I can (kind of) understand why it happened.

[Busyman]

I think, to the police, this guy wasn't that important until he started to flee. So he wasn't important enough to stop him from getting on a bus or getting near a tube station. He was, perhaps, a potential lead who may not even have been followed up on if things had gone differently.

However, as soon as he started to flee he became a major threat. He went from someone who might have a connection to "OMG this guy might have a bomb" in a small space of time. I don't agree with what happened but I can (kind of) understand why it happened.
Good point, CheeseHesh.

[RioDeLeo]

They would have known he had to get the tube as well as the bus, he'd been under surveillance for weeks.


The block of flats in Tulse Hill, south London, where Mr Mr De Menezes lived, was under surveillance following the discovery of its address in a rucksack containing one of four bombs which failed to explode in the capital last Thursday.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535605,00.html)

If he had realised before he reached the station that he was being followed, that may have been the reason he jumped the barrier and fled, he may never have heard the request to stop. That's if he did jump the barrier.

[manker]

The block of flats in Tulse Hill, south London, where Mr Mr De Menezes lived, was under surveillance following the discovery of its address in a rucksack containing one of four bombs which failed to explode in the capital last Thursday.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535605,00.html)

If he had realised before he reached the station that he was being followed, that may have been the reason he jumped the barrier and fled, he may never have heard the request to stop. That's if he did jump the barrier.That's a fairly unimportant point but it appears I did misrepresent the time he'd been under surveilance. I thought it was since the initial bombings.

My premis was that the police should have attempted to apprehend him in a manner which prevented him darting into the busy tube station.

[RioDeLeo]

My premis was that the police should have attempted to apprehend him in a manner which prevented him darting into the busy tube station.

Or onto a bus.

[Barbarossa]

I am a bit disturbed about this whole thing. There are a number of factors that worked against him, and I have equal sympathy for him, his family, and for the police officers involved.

1). He came out of a building that was under surveillance.
2). He was wearing thick padded clothing.
3). He was of a dark complexion.
4). He panicking and reacted in an irrational manner when challenged.
5). It was only one day after an attempted suicide attack.

One could argue, that if any one of the above five points was not true, he would still be alive today.

On the one hand, the guy was a complete idiot for jumping over the turnstiles and trying to desperately reach the train, I can understand that he did look like a suicide bomber, and so I can understand the desperate need to stop him being able to detonate a bomb. A shoot-to-kill policy is the only 100% effective way to stop a suicide bomber, and aiming at the head is the sensible way to avoid accidentally detonating any explosives he may have about his torso.

On the other hand, firing 5 shots into the head at extremely close range does seem really brutal, and it's the sort of thing we usually hear about in the news from other countries, not in our capital city.

I think this incidident is going to have ramifications, both socially and politically for some time to come. (in the same way as those IRA bombers being gunned down in Gibraltar by the SAS in 1988)

I just hope we won't have to learn to get used to it. :(

[lynx]

Seems his visa may have expired.

If this had happened to a Westerner in Iraq a few years ago there would have been calls for action to be taken against Saddam and his "thugs".

[DanB]

Had Iraq been attacked by western suicide bombers then? :unsure:

[lynx]

Had Iraq been attacked by western suicide bombers then? :unsure:
Why do you ask?
Is it because you think cold blooded murder by armed police is acceptable once suicide bombers commit atrocities in our country?

[DanB]

It certainly gives more of a justification than if he was just a ticket dodger.

Do you think if we hadn't have endured the recent terrorist attacks they would have shot him 5 times in the head? :unsure:

Or would you rather they had just let him get on the train and see if it had blown up? Is that a risk you would be prepared to take if you were in that officer's position?

And in answer to your question my answer is yes. If they fully believe that it is someone that needs taking out to prevent something terrible happening then I see no reson why they shouldn't.

[bigboab]

I agree with Dan. I can see no justification in criticising the police under the present circumstances. What would and should worry me/us is if the police/authorities are/were aware of the intentions of other bombers and did not shoot them.
It seems strange to me that within hours they are knocking on doors. Unless they have CCTV cameras that give the name and address of everyone appearing on them.:ph34r:

[lynx]

My point was not whether you think they were justified in their actions. What I was trying to highlight is the apparent double standards with regard to what is permissible and where and under what circumstances.

BTW, this is not aimed at Dan or Boab, their responses are simply representative of one side of this argument and I don't mean to suggest that they are guilty of these double standards.

That said, I think it is a dangerous precedent if we allow what are effectively "hit squads" to act as Judge, Jury and Executioners.

[JPaul]

That said, I think it is a dangerous precedent if we allow what are effectively "hit squads" to act as Judge, Jury and Executioners.
I don't think that's the case at all here.

It was apparently an operation which was ongoing. They were following one of the subjects. He then acted in a totally unusual manner. When challenged he ran onto a train.

I agree that they probably intended doing no more than follow this man, to what end I have no idea. The killing was precipitated by what he did.

Given the current circumstances this was a tragic accident.

[Busyman]

My point was not whether you think they were justified in their actions. What I was trying to highlight is the apparent double standards with regard to what is permissible and where and under what circumstances.

BTW, this is not aimed at Dan or Boab, their responses are simply representative of one side of this argument and I don't mean to suggest that they are guilty of these double standards.

That said, I think it is a dangerous precedent if we allow what are effectively "hit squads" to act as Judge, Jury and Executioners.
However, the example you gave is flawed.

It's pretty simple. The gentlemen that was killed acted in a dangerous manner during heightened alert status. Even further, the police are not known for being "unfair".

To equate Saddam's police force to London's is exagerrated.

[masta.z]

i read in on of the newspapers at work that as the guy was fleeing there was wires visible hanging out of his jacket...
as he was an electritian this could be true, but it would certainly have made him seem even more like a suicide bomber

personally i think the police officer made the right decision although regrettably the person "appears" to have had no terrorist links or wasn't up to something... but as mentioned before he could have just been a decoy or sent to test the security for the next round of attacks

only time may tell...

[lynx]

I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats.

[JPaul]

I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats.
Which particular tactics would you describe as being "Israeli tactics", as opposed to any other type of tactics.

Oh and whilst we are on it, who are you talking about when you say "I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats"

I am genuinely intrigued, as I have not noted the same phenomenon. Who are these dissenters of which you speak.

[Busyman]

I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats.
Another flawed comparison. :dry:

They are two entirely different situations.

[lynx]

I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats.
Which particular tactics would you describe as being "Israeli tactics", as opposed to any other type of tactics.

Oh and whilst we are on it, who are you talking about when you say "I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats"

I am genuinely intrigued, as I have not noted the same phenomenon. Who are these dissenters of which you speak.
The anti-suicide bomber tactics which teams were sent to Israel to learn. If you wish to dispute that I suggest you take it up with John Stevens, former Met Police Commissioner, since he is the one who claims he sent the teams.

As to those who now appear willing to accept these tactics, I suggest you read some of the threads regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm not going to trawl through them. If you can't work out for yourself those who have spoken out against them in the past then you are unlikely to take my word for it so there's little point.



I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats.

Another flawed comparison. :dry:

They are two entirely different situations.Different in what way? Are you now suggesting that it is ok for British police to gun people down in the street, but not ok for Israelis to do the same against Palestinians? :blink:
Your logic escapes me.


On a brighter note, South Wales Chief Constable (and former Asst Met Police Commissioner) Barbara Wilding says that police teams can only kill with the permission of senior officers. So that's ok then.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ok according to interviews on sky news they were watching the wrong flat.
The guy lived in flat 17, they were spose to be watching flat 21.

So the officers who shot him were totally justified. They were given instructions to "Stop" the man.
This raises issues of clarity no?

At this time how much force is to be used?

They were told to stop him, he would'nt stop so they stopped him.

One thing that does bug me tho was some of the protesters banners "Rascist murder"???
How exactly was this rascist? because he was'nt white? :huh:

I don't think the officers thought they'd shoot him 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder because he was'nt white. They were following orders, a descision had to be made, the officer made it.
Try to put yourself in his position for a moment.

Also people keep saying he's Brazillian and might not have understood.
Well considering he's an electrician been living in the uk for a couple of years, if he cannot understand the words "Stop or we will fire" then how the hell did he get any business??

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

Which particular tactics would you describe as being "Israeli tactics", as opposed to any other type of tactics.

Oh and whilst we are on it, who are you talking about when you say "I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats"

I am genuinely intrigued, as I have not noted the same phenomenon. Who are these dissenters of which you speak.
The anti-suicide bomber tactics which teams were sent to Israel to learn. If you wish to dispute that I suggest you take it up with John Stevens, former Met Police Commissioner, since he is the one who claims he sent the teams.

As to those who now appear willing to accept these tactics, I suggest you read some of the threads regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm not going to trawl through them. If you can't work out for yourself those who have spoken out against them in the past then you are unlikely to take my word for it so there's little point.



I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats.

Another flawed comparison. :dry:

They are two entirely different situations.Different in what way? Are you now suggesting that it is ok for British police to gun people down in the street, but not ok for Israelis to do the same against Palestinians? :blink:
Your logic escapes me.

Duuuuh...then how is it different when it happens in America and non-terrorist related.

The fella was perceived as a real threat. It ain't rocket science. :1eye:

If the police have guns drawn and I go for my wallet in my coat, I will probably be shot.

You generalize "British police gunning people down in the street" like a typical sensationalist.

To add to that. I never said it wasn't ok for Israeli's to do it.
If a grown ass Palestinian man simply wants to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, I think he knows what may happen.

[lynx]

The anti-suicide bomber tactics which teams were sent to Israel to learn. If you wish to dispute that I suggest you take it up with John Stevens, former Met Police Commissioner, since he is the one who claims he sent the teams.

As to those who now appear willing to accept these tactics, I suggest you read some of the threads regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm not going to trawl through them. If you can't work out for yourself those who have spoken out against them in the past then you are unlikely to take my word for it so there's little point.



I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats.

Another flawed comparison. :dry:

They are two entirely different situations.Different in what way? Are you now suggesting that it is ok for British police to gun people down in the street, but not ok for Israelis to do the same against Palestinians? :blink:
Your logic escapes me.

Duuuuh...then how is it different when it happens in America and non-terrorist related.

The fella was perceived as a real threat. It ain't rocket science. :1eye:

If the police have guns drawn and I go for my wallet in my coat, I will probably be shot.

You generalize "British police gunning people down in the street" like a typical sensationalist.

To add to that. I never said it wasn't ok for Israeli's to do it.
If a grown ass Palestinian man simply wants to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, I think he knows what may happen.
It's a good job that being afraid of people brandishing guns in an area known for armed muggings isn't a capital offence. Oops, maybe it is now.

In the US it is quite normal for police to be armed, but that's not the case in the UK. So, seeing someone waving a gun here you would assume that they were NOT police officers. It is essential in a situation like this that the armed officers should be in uniform so that there is NO doubt who they are.

Stockwell tube station is next to the A3, one of the busiest roads in London. Making yourself heard there is likely to be difficult at the best of times, and this was rush hour, so any warnings would at best have been garbled. Once running and inside the tube station it would be virtually impossible to hear a warning, if one was given, and no eye-witness on the train reported hearing a warning. However, the shoot-to-kill policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, does not require a warning to be given.

But the thrust of the post that you queried was not about the tactics employed, but about the duality of the opinions expressed by others, and I don't just mean on this board.

[Busyman]

The anti-suicide bomber tactics which teams were sent to Israel to learn. If you wish to dispute that I suggest you take it up with John Stevens, former Met Police Commissioner, since he is the one who claims he sent the teams.

As to those who now appear willing to accept these tactics, I suggest you read some of the threads regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm not going to trawl through them. If you can't work out for yourself those who have spoken out against them in the past then you are unlikely to take my word for it so there's little point.



Another flawed comparison. :dry:

They are two entirely different situations.Different in what way? Are you now suggesting that it is ok for British police to gun people down in the street, but not ok for Israelis to do the same against Palestinians? :blink:
Your logic escapes me.

Duuuuh...then how is it different when it happens in America and non-terrorist related.

The fella was perceived as a real threat. It ain't rocket science. :1eye:

If the police have guns drawn and I go for my wallet in my coat, I will probably be shot.

You generalize "British police gunning people down in the street" like a typical sensationalist.

To add to that. I never said it wasn't ok for Israeli's to do it.
If a grown ass Palestinian man simply wants to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, I think he knows what may happen.
It's a good job that being afraid of people brandishing guns in an area known for armed muggings isn't a capital offence. Oops, maybe it is now.

In the US it is quite normal for police to be armed, but that's not the case in the UK. So, seeing someone waving a gun here you would assume that they were NOT police officers. It is essential in a situation like this that the armed officers should be in uniform so that there is NO doubt who they are.

Stockwell tube station is next to the A3, one of the busiest roads in London. Making yourself heard there is likely to be difficult at the best of times, and this was rush hour, so any warnings would at best have been garbled. Once running and inside the tube station it would be virtually impossible to hear a warning, if one was given, and no eye-witness on the train reported hearing a warning. However, the shoot-to-kill policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, does not require a warning to be given.

But the thrust of the post that you queried was not about the tactics employed, but about the duality of the opinions expressed by others, and I don't just mean on this board.
Riiight, maybe he didn't hear that there was heightened security at the stations then, you know with a recently terrorist bombing and whatnot.

It sounds like armedanybody is odd over there so recent terrorist bombings + armed white men = stop.

Oh if he didn't hear them, how did he know they were after him?
I don't automatically assume that a police car with blazing lights near me is after me.

Personally, I think he was testing security and it backfired.

People say he had wires hanging from his coat. What electrician packs wires in their pocket? :blink: I work for the telephone company and it's on a spool.

I dan't put errant clippangs in me poeckets. :dry:

[JPaul]

Which particular tactics would you describe as being "Israeli tactics", as opposed to any other type of tactics.

Oh and whilst we are on it, who are you talking about when you say "I am amazed at how many of those who have spoken out against Israeli tactics seem so willing to accept them when their own country is exposed to the same sort of threats"

I am genuinely intrigued, as I have not noted the same phenomenon. Who are these dissenters of which you speak.
The anti-suicide bomber tactics which teams were sent to Israel to learn. If you wish to dispute that I suggest you take it up with John Stevens, former Met Police Commissioner, since he is the one who claims he sent the teams.

As to those who now appear willing to accept these tactics, I suggest you read some of the threads regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm not going to trawl through them. If you can't work out for yourself those who have spoken out against them in the past then you are unlikely to take my word for it so there's little point.


Re the first part, a misunderstanding by me, I think. You call them "Israeli Tactics" because your Police learned them from the Israelis, rather than meaning that they were tactics used only by the Israeli Police. Is that a more accurate reading of your meaning.

Re the second part, I have no more inclination to trawl thro' threads to find such people than you do. I simply felt that as you had made the comment you would have some people in mind. I couldn't think of anyone who rejected the approach when used in Israel, but supported it when used in England. If you can't think of anyone pas de problem.

[lynx]

Tactics learned in Israel/tactics used by Israeli security forces/Israeli tacics. Do you really feel there is a difference? Or are you just being picky about a choice of words?

As for people who have shown duality in their opinions on such tactics, I can think of plenty both on and off this board, and I'm pretty sure you can too, which is why I'm not going to bother to react to that comment.

[DanB]

Why is it bad to use 'Israeli' tactics to kill suicide bombers? Is it cos its related to Israel we should feel bad?

If the police started tazering people for not geting out of their cars when asked would we then moan about them using American tactics? :unsure:

Heck, if the bloke had gone home when his visa had run out he would be safe and alive today sunning it up in Brazil

[manker]

Let that be a lesson to all other foreigners who out-stay their visas :dry:

[DanB]

Let that be a lesson to all other foreigners who out-stay their visas :dry:

You know that :01:

Seriously though we wouldn't be in half the pickle we are now if we actually had decent immigration and border controls. 500,000 unknown potential terrorists, its all good :pinch:

[manker]

Let that be a lesson to all other foreigners who out-stay their visas :dry:

You know that :01:

Seriously though we wouldn't be in half the pickle we are now if we actually had decent immigration and border controls. 500,000 unknown potential terrorists, its all good :pinch:Yeah, but then my mate Wal from the chippy wouldn't be my mate :(

Aside from that important factor - we'd be a pretty crap country. I think that the diversity we have is great. To lose that because we think we might be safer is not a trade off I'd be willing to make.

How about we stop joining in with wars that don't concern us, instead.

[DanB]

Diversity is great, as long they are actually contributing.

[manker]

You obviously haven't tried Wal's fish and Chips :snooty:

[DanB]

Is he an illegal immigrant then?

I'm not saying no immigration at all, just that it should be controlled and we should have an effective way of recording, logging, following up and deporting when refused to stay

[manker]

He's not illegal and I thought you were saying that immigration is a bad thing. I do agree with what you write in so much as the administration leaves much to be desired.

Immigration gets blamed for a lot and the benefits are rarely mentioned.

[DanB]

He's not illegal and I thought you were saying that immigration is a bad thing.

But I said this :


Diversity is great, as long they are actually contributing.

and then this:


Seriously though we wouldn't be in half the pickle we are now if we actually had decent immigration and border controls


We agree though so :01:

[Rat Faced]

In an interview with channel 4 tonight, the that Blaire guy at the met said that they had 250 incidents where they thought they were following a suicide bomber since 7/7

7 of these times, they nearly shot the suspect.




Bad time to wear a coat or carry a rucsack if your skin isnt white in London.. :unsure:


BTW: If they hit our economy/infrastructure, they are murderers... we hit theirs, its colateral damage... o-kay...

[JPaul]

Tactics learned in Israel/tactics used by Israeli security forces/Israeli tacics. Do you really feel there is a difference? Or are you just being picky about a choice of words?

As for people who have shown duality in their opinions on such tactics, I can think of plenty both on and off this board, and I'm pretty sure you can too, which is why I'm not going to bother to react to that comment.
I feel the connotations are very different. I don't think I am being picky re the choice of words, I think it's important to understand what someone means and if you are unsure to ask. As such could you clarify what you meant by Israeli Tactics as I am now even more confused. If you can't be bothered cool.

Re your second, I can't think of anyone who condems such policies in Israel but supports them in England. You obviously don't believe me, like I said pas de problem.

You say "react to that comment" as if I were having a go at you, not the case I am genuinely curious about this duplicitousness you perceive, simply because I don't see it.

[DanB]

BTW: If they hit our economy/infrastructure, they are murderers... we hit theirs, its colateral damage... o-kay...

We don't mean to, they set out to

[JPaul]

BTW: If they hit our economy/infrastructure, they are murderers... we hit theirs, its colateral damage... o-kay...
You see "colateral damage" as being analogous to suicide bombings on totally civilian targets.

I can't agree, most crimes are to an extent dependent on the intention of the person carrying out the act. I think this is the same type of thing.

[JPaul]

Bad time to wear a coat or carry a rucsack if your skin isnt white in London.. :unsure:

I would say his skin was white mate.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41337000/jpg/_41337183_menezes203.jpg

I don't really see what your point is there.

[Rat Faced]

During the 10 years prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US and UK were known to target water purification plants..

Many innocents were killed, not a military target, against the geneva convention.

Economic Targets are, and have always been legitimate targets, from the times the Tudors sent privateers to attack spanish merchant ships and earlier.

The "Target" was to bring the London Transport system to a halt. They achieved this.

If they just wished to kill civilians, then there are many other places that they could have bombed with timers/remotes, where they would not have been at risk.

As the target was legitimate, then the deaths are colateral damage.


Either that, or the US troops that went into Falujah are murderers as well... legitimate target (suspected militia), lots of innocents killed.


You cant have it both ways.

You cant declare a war and then say "But we arent playing unless you stand still and let us kill you, without you doing the same thing back"

Well, you can... but you'd be ignored..

[DanB]

If they just wished to kill civilians, then there are many other places that they could have bombed with timers/remotes, where they would not have been at risk.

But then there wouldn't be the glory of martyrdom would there

And your comment about the tube being a legitimate target is complete bollocks :D

[Rat Faced]

The transport and economic structure of a country is one of the most important targets there is Danb...ask any soldier.

What are the 1st things bombed in a country after the air defences are taken out?

Railways, Bridges and Airports.

Stop the transport system and you cripple a country.

They have managed it twice in London, and various smaller crippling because of scares..

I'd say the succeeded in what they wanted to do.


You dont need the glory of martyrdom... you do this as a last resort.

On the transport system, remotes wont work... and left baggage is suspicious and taken away. What the target is defines the tactics.

In Israel, there is so many armed guards around being suspicious of everything, that is the ONLY thing that works...

In Iraq, there is a combination... the suicide bombers are used when they have to be, car bombs are used when there is no need for them.

If they just wished to kill lots of people... I can think of a number of things in London they could have achieved this, with 4 bombs of the apparent strength they had, with no risk whatsoever...

[bigboab]

If the tube and buses are a 'legitimate' targets then they could hit them in the bus and tube depots\sidings where they would destroy more without killing innocent people. But then again there are no 'civilians' in Fundamental Islamic thinking. Anyone who is not a Islamic and Fundamental is a legitimate target.

Maybe, as they are doing this in the name of Islam, we should threaten to proscribe the Islamic Faith in the UK. If nothing else it would make them deal with the problem internally and also liven up this thread.:)

[JPaul]

The "Target" was to bring the London Transport system to a halt. They achieved this.

If they just wished to kill civilians, then there are many other places that they could have bombed with timers/remotes, where they would not have been at risk.

As the target was legitimate, then the deaths are colateral damage.


Nonsense and sick nonsense at that. You insult the people who were murdered indiscriminately. I thought more of you.

If the target was the transport system they could have bombed empty railway lines, killing no-one but achieving the same end. They could destroy roads, bridges, power lines, loads of things.

They could give warnings. They don't even do that.

[JPaul]

.... with no risk whatsoever...
Do you genuinely not understand that the suicide is part of the policy. To show just how fanatical they are and how far they will go.

"If our people will kill themselves for us, then who is safe."

That's intrinsic to the tactic, to spread as much fear as possible.

[Rat Faced]

I dont insult the people that were murdered JP.

I condemned this, just as i condemned Falujah and the invasion itself.

I'm just not hypocritical enough to think that when someone we fight, fights back, then its different.

[JPaul]

I dont insult the people that were murdered JP.

I condemned this, just as i condemned Falujah and the invasion itself.

I'm just not hypocritical enough to think that when someone we fight, fights back, then its different.
Do you honestly believe that the target was the London transport system.

[Busyman]

I dont insult the people that were murdered JP.

I condemned this, just as i condemned Falujah and the invasion itself.

I'm just not hypocritical enough to think that when someone we fight, fights back, then its different.
Do you honestly believe that the target was the London transport system.
In part, it had to be but it wasn't to destroy the transport system but people's faith in it.

It also is where they could get the most people cooped up in one spot.

[Rat Faced]

I dont insult the people that were murdered JP.

I condemned this, just as i condemned Falujah and the invasion itself.

I'm just not hypocritical enough to think that when someone we fight, fights back, then its different.
Do you honestly believe that the target was the London transport system.

I dont know.

If it was me though, it would have been.

The fact that they took the Tube System out, followed by a bus, seems to suggest it was the entire transport system they wished to cripple.

If i'd wanted just to kill/injure, then that much explosive suitably placed around Regent Street as an example, would have taken more people out.

I would also have been still around to cause more carnage later.

Just because you're willing to die, does not mean that you have to.

[JPaul]

Do you honestly believe that the target was the London transport system.

I dont know.

If it was me though, it would have been.

The fact that they took the Tube System out, followed by a bus, seems to suggest it was the entire transport system they wished to cripple.

If i'd wanted just to kill/injure, then that much explosive suitably placed around Regent Street as an example, would have taken more people out.

I would also have been still around to cause more carnage later.

Just because you're willing to die, does not mean that you have to.

Had the target been the transport system they could have attacked that without killing innocent people. You know that as well as I do, both boab and I have pointed this out.

Exploding a bomb on a bus or on an underground train, at the time it happened was obviously an attack on innocent civilians, not on the transport infrastructure.

However you already know that. Which is why I took your original post to be disingenuous. The only thing which saddens me is that it was you who posted it, I would have expected as much of others, but not of you.

[Rat Faced]

JP, it was so effective because of where and when it happened.

A bomb on an underground tube is the nightmare that the emergency services dreaded.

It is the hardest thing to combat.

You may think that is disrespectful, i dont mean it that way.

As i said, if it had been me i would have chosen a similar target... and i dont like killing.

[RioDeLeo]

l think the assumption that we, the "West", don't target civilians is wrong. When we attack 'legitimate' targets and kill innocent civilians we cause terror, this is a military tactic. Maybe someone can explain the fire bombing of places like Dresden in a purely military sense? The idea was to spread terror amongst the German population to help bring an early end to the war. The same is true of the only two times nuclear weapons have been used, both on civilian targets.

Now we have places like Israel, killing 'insurgents' with rocket attacks in crowded streets, and C130 gunships shooting up weddings, men, women and children, on the off-chance that a senior member of the taliban may have been there.

Why is this not as shocking as killing people in London?

[Busyman]

l think the assumption that we, the "West", don't target civilians is wrong. When we attack 'legitimate' targets and kill innocent civilians we cause terror, this is a military tactic. Maybe someone can explain the fire bombing of places like Dresden in a purely military sense? The idea was to spread terror amongst the German population to help bring an early end to the war. The same is true of the only two times nuclear weapons have been used, both on civilian targets.

Now we have places like Israel, killing 'insurgents' with rocket attacks in crowded streets, and C130 gunships shooting up weddings, men, women and children, on the off-chance that a senior member of the taliban may have been there.

Why is this not as shocking as killing people in London?
Who were the targets in London?

[RioDeLeo]

Who were the targets in London?
Are you referring to WW2? If you are; first off, all the targets were 'military', the initial target in London was the docks. However, this soon turned to random bombings, and, with the introduction of the V1 and V2, the pretense of military targeting was dropped.

If you're referring to the latest bombings, the target, in my mind, was to terrorize. As RF said, if it was solely to kill people they could have bombed many better targets, Live8 for instance, or the cricket match between Australia and England, or London Bridge in the rush hour. London is very important to Britain, it's the centre of so many things, on any working day there are twenty million people in London, disrupting the transit systems and stopping people getting to work would have a profound effect on the country, as witnessed by the drop in the Financial Times Index. l'm not saying that was the intention, l don't know, no-one does, except the people who planned and carried it out.

[bigboab]

l think the assumption that we, the "West", don't target civilians is wrong. When we attack 'legitimate' targets and kill innocent civilians we cause terror, this is a military tactic. Maybe someone can explain the fire bombing of places like Dresden in a purely military sense? The idea was to spread terror amongst the German population to help bring an early end to the war. The same is true of the only two times nuclear weapons have been used, both on civilian targets.

Now we have places like Israel, killing 'insurgents' with rocket attacks in crowded streets, and C130 gunships shooting up weddings, men, women and children, on the off-chance that a senior member of the taliban may have been there.

Why is this not as shocking as killing people in London?

Are you sure about the C130. I thought that was a Hercules Transport Aircraft. That would be a sitting target if it came down low.

[RioDeLeo]

Are you sure about the C130. I thought that was a Hercules Transport Aircraft. That would be a sitting target if it came down low.

C130 Gunship Video. (http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/25/c-130-gunship-video/)

[bigboab]

Are you sure about the C130. I thought that was a Hercules Transport Aircraft. That would be a sitting target if it came down low.

C130 Gunship Video. (http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/25/c-130-gunship-video/)

It does not really matter in the great scheme of things. But I think the Gunships you are referring to are AC-130 and not the massive transport C-130.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/c130.jpg

[RioDeLeo]

It does not really matter in the great scheme of things. But I think the Gunships you are referring to are AC-130 and not the massive transport C-130.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/c130.jpg

"The AC-130 Gunship is armed variant of the Lockheed C-130 Hercules."

Source (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/c130.htm)

[Barbarossa]

The main aim of a terrorist is to instill fear in their enemies. That's where the word "terrorist" comes from.. To the terrorist, their "enemies" are anyone that supports the system they themselves are against, which includes what we call innocent civilians.

By setting of the bombs at the time they did, and on the chosen targets, they have achieved their main goal, which is to cause terror and panic. I can't think of many things more terrifying than travelling in a train in a tunnel below the city, and not knowing if it's going to explode at any time.

That is going to be the lasting effect of these attacks, people are never going to truly feel safe again going about their normal business. Especially while the perpetrators of last weeks failed attempt remain at large.

Al Qaeda and their copy-cats are very VERY good at terrorism. Especially large-impact co-ordinated attacks. It's sickening how good they are in fact. Look at how successful 9/11 was, and Bali, and the Madrid bombings, and now the London bombings. And I'm sure there are others I've forgotten.. (which is even more sad)

All of this makes me think we were incredibly lucky last thursday that they made a mistake and the bombs failed to detonate properly. However, even the fact that a second attempt was made has increased the levels of terror in the city. So again, their failure is a kind of a success too.

[Busyman]

Who were the targets in London?
Are you referring to WW2? If you are; first off, all the targets were 'military', the initial target in London was the docks. However, this soon turned to random bombings, and, with the introduction of the V1 and V2, the pretense of military targeting was dropped.

If you're referring to the latest bombings, the target, in my mind, was to terrorize. As RF said, if it was solely to kill people they could have bombed many better targets, Live8 for instance, or the cricket match between Australia and England, or London Bridge in the rush hour. London is very important to Britain, it's the centre of so many things, on any working day there are twenty million people in London, disrupting the transit systems and stopping people getting to work would have a profound effect on the country, as witnessed by the drop in the Financial Times Index. l'm not saying that was the intention, l don't know, no-one does, except the people who planned and carried it out.

It's pretty easy.

You all go through the paragraphing and whatnot.

The target was infrastructure and people. The tubes were bombed when it was busy not just before rush hour.

People were not just stopped from going to work, some of them were stopped cold. :ermm:

[RPerry]

The target was infrastructure and people. The tubes were bombed when it was busy not just before rush hour.

People were not just stopped from going to work, some of them were stopped cold. :ermm:

This makes more sense to me. The same was true with what happened in NY September 11th. Yes, lots of lives were lost, but it could have been much more worse if those buildings had been hit later in the afternoon. instead of over 3,000, it could have been more than 30,000 :(

[manker]

The target was infrastructure and people. The tubes were bombed when it was busy not just before rush hour.

People were not just stopped from going to work, some of them were stopped cold. :ermm:

This makes more sense to me. The same was true with what happened in NY September 11th. Yes, lots of lives were lost, but it could have been much more worse if those buildings had been hit later in the afternoon. instead of over 3,000, it could have been more than 30,000 :(You think the terrorists tried to temper 911 :blink:

They co-ordinated 4 passenger planes to hit specific targets. It must have been a logistic nightmare, I doubt they decided to do it in the morning because it would cause less loss of life - if that was a consideration, they'd have done it in the dead of night.

No, the timing of the attack was a by-product of wanting to cause maximum disruption and loss of lives while bearing in mind the constraints placed upon them by other factors such as military response, airport security, plane time-tables, amount of fuel on each aircraft.

They couldn't have just decided to do it at a certain time. To a large extent, that had to fit in around the other variables.

[RPerry]

This makes more sense to me. The same was true with what happened in NY September 11th. Yes, lots of lives were lost, but it could have been much more worse if those buildings had been hit later in the afternoon. instead of over 3,000, it could have been more than 30,000 :(You think the terrorists tried to temper 911 :blink:

They co-ordinated 4 passenger planes to hit specific targets. It must have been a logistic nightmare, I doubt they decided to do it in the morning because it would cause less loss of life - if that was a consideration, they'd have done it in the dead of night.

No, the timing of the attack was a by-product of wanting to cause maximum disruption and loss of lives while bearing in mind the constraints placed upon them by other factors such as military response, airport security, plane time-tables, amount of fuel on each aircraft.

They couldn't have just decided to do it at a certain time. To a large extent, that had to fit in around the other variables.

I didn't say they tried to curve it down, I merely said it could have been worse. I doubt any of the other factors you have mentioned would have been any different later in the day, especially the amount of fuel, since so many flights leave the east coast for the west coast

[JPaul]

This makes more sense to me. The same was true with what happened in NY September 11th. Yes, lots of lives were lost, but it could have been much more worse if those buildings had been hit later in the afternoon. instead of over 3,000, it could have been more than 30,000 :(You think the terrorists tried to temper 911 :blink:

They co-ordinated 4 passenger planes to hit specific targets. It must have been a logistic nightmare, I doubt they decided to do it in the morning because it would cause less loss of life - if that was a consideration, they'd have done it in the dead of night.

No, the timing of the attack was a by-product of wanting to cause maximum disruption and loss of lives while bearing in mind the constraints placed upon them by other factors such as military response, airport security, plane time-tables, amount of fuel on each aircraft.

They couldn't have just decided to do it at a certain time. To a large extent, that had to fit in around the other variables.

You think.

[manker]

You think the terrorists tried to temper 911 :blink:

They co-ordinated 4 passenger planes to hit specific targets. It must have been a logistic nightmare, I doubt they decided to do it in the morning because it would cause less loss of life - if that was a consideration, they'd have done it in the dead of night.

No, the timing of the attack was a by-product of wanting to cause maximum disruption and loss of lives while bearing in mind the constraints placed upon them by other factors such as military response, airport security, plane time-tables, amount of fuel on each aircraft.

They couldn't have just decided to do it at a certain time. To a large extent, that had to fit in around the other variables.

I didn't say they tried to curve it down, I merely said it could have been worse. I doubt any of the other factors you have mentioned would have been any different later in the day, especially the amount of fuel, since so many flights leave the east coast for the west coastSo it was just a casual remark. It looked like you were saying that the terrorists deliberately spared thousands of lives on 911.

I don't see how that correlates to the thread because the London bombings happened in rush hour, it couldn't have been busier.

[manker]

You think the terrorists tried to temper 911 :blink:

They co-ordinated 4 passenger planes to hit specific targets. It must have been a logistic nightmare, I doubt they decided to do it in the morning because it would cause less loss of life - if that was a consideration, they'd have done it in the dead of night.

No, the timing of the attack was a by-product of wanting to cause maximum disruption and loss of lives while bearing in mind the constraints placed upon them by other factors such as military response, airport security, plane time-tables, amount of fuel on each aircraft.

They couldn't have just decided to do it at a certain time. To a large extent, that had to fit in around the other variables.

You think.Aye.

[RPerry]

I didn't say they tried to curve it down, I merely said it could have been worse. I doubt any of the other factors you have mentioned would have been any different later in the day, especially the amount of fuel, since so many flights leave the east coast for the west coastSo it was just a casual remark. It looked like you were saying that the terrorists deliberately spared thousands of lives on 911.

I don't see how that correlates to the thread because the London bombings happened in rush hour, it couldn't have been busier.

I wasn't commenting on the whole thread, merely stated that what Busyman said made more sense to me. What was the target in London ? People, or Transit ? If their sole reasoning was to kill people, they could have chosen a different target.

[manker]

So it was just a casual remark. It looked like you were saying that the terrorists deliberately spared thousands of lives on 911.

I don't see how that correlates to the thread because the London bombings happened in rush hour, it couldn't have been busier.

I wasn't commenting on the whole thread, merely stated that what Busyman said made more sense to me. What was the target in London ? People, or Transit ? If their sole reasoning was to kill people, they could have chosen a different target.
Right. So my first post that you refuted was correct - you are saying that the 911 terrorists deliberately spared thousands of civillian lives.

[RPerry]

I wasn't commenting on the whole thread, merely stated that what Busyman said made more sense to me. What was the target in London ? People, or Transit ? If their sole reasoning was to kill people, they could have chosen a different target.
Right. So my first post that you refuted was correct - you are saying that the 911 terrorists deliberately spared thousands of civillian lives.

Either you like to start shit, or there is something wrong with your eyes :rolleyes:

[manker]

Right. So my first post that you refuted was correct - you are saying that the 911 terrorists deliberately spared thousands of civillian lives.

Either you like to start shit, or there is something wrong with your eyes :rolleyes:Fuck off.


You said about the London bombings:

If their sole reasoning was to kill people, they could have chosen a different target

Is it unreasonable for me to assume from your initial post that you meant if the 911 bombers' sole reasoning to kill people, they could have chosen a different time.

You also went on to say that there was no reason that they couldn't have done it later in the day - again, I reasonably assumed that you meant that they chose to do it earlier so as to spare civillian lives.

Now, I'm trying to ascertain if, indeed, you did mean just that.

[RPerry]

Either you like to start shit, or there is something wrong with your eyes :rolleyes:Fuck off.


You said about the London bombings:

If their sole reasoning was to kill people, they could have chosen a different target

Is it unreasonable for me to assume from your initial post that you meant if the 911 bombers' sole reasoning to kill people, they could have chosen a different time.

You also went on to say that there was no reason that they couldn't have done it later in the day - again, I reasonably assumed that you meant that they chose to do it earlier so as to spare civillian lives.

Now, I'm trying to ascertain if, indeed, you did mean just that.


Fuck off yourself.

In regards to what I posted, I have no idea why the terrorists that attacked NY and Washington DC chose the time they did, but their attack was not only against civiallians, but against our financial center. While I would maintain that a terrorists ways of thinking, trying to terrorize people so they can have their way is totally stupid, the planning behind such an event is hardly such, and there is no way you'll make me beleive they didn't know that atleast 100,000 people worked in the Twin Towers alone.
Do I think they meant to spare people ? no fucking way. However there was more to their agenda.

Military Response ? are you joking ?? You think the time of day would effect that ? I just was in Washington DC July 4th weekend, Flights are around the clock at Andrews Air Force Base, as they are in most bases.

Airport security ? There was very little security until after 911

plane time table and fuel.... As I said there are many flights from the East Coast to the West Coast, and they all would have been loaded with fuel, which is precisely why they chose those flights. So while I have no answer to why they chose their time table, neither do you. I do know if I only wanted to kill people alone, without any other factor, you had better keep an eye on your water supply.

[manker]

Fuck off.


You said about the London bombings:

If their sole reasoning was to kill people, they could have chosen a different target

Is it unreasonable for me to assume from your initial post that you meant if the 911 bombers' sole reasoning to kill people, they could have chosen a different time.

You also went on to say that there was no reason that they couldn't have done it later in the day - again, I reasonably assumed that you meant that they chose to do it earlier so as to spare civillian lives.

Now, I'm trying to ascertain if, indeed, you did mean just that.


Fuck off yourself.

In regards to what I posted, I have no idea why the terrorists that attacked NY and Washington DC chose the time they did, but their attack was not only against civiallians, but against our financial center. While I would maintain that a terrorists ways of thinking, trying to terrorize people so they can have their way is totally stupid, the planning behind such an event is hardly such, and there is no way you'll make me beleive they didn't know that atleast 100,000 people worked in the Twin Towers alone.
Do I think they meant to spare people ? no fucking way. However there was more to their agenda.

Military Response ? are you joking ?? You think the time of day would effect that ? I just was in Washington DC July 4th weekend, Flights are around the clock at Andrews Air Force Base, as they are in most bases.

Airport security ? There was very little security until after 911

plane time table and fuel.... As I said there are many flights from the East Coast to the West Coast, and they all would have been loaded with fuel, which is precisely why they chose those flights. So while I have no answer to why they chose their time table, neither do you. I do know if I only wanted to kill people alone, without any other factor, you had better keep an eye on your water supply.
Those were examples I put forward, to try to illustrate other factors involved. Of course there are more but I don't know them as I've never planned such an attack.

Now, I'm not trying to have you believe that the terrorists didn't know that there was 100,000 people working there - quite the opposite, of course they knew.

You've posted your opinion that the time of the attack would make no difference logistically, at least you've refuted my points.

So, they knew that attacking in the afternoon would cause circa 30,000 deaths and they knew attacking in the morning would cause circa 3000 deaths. You knew this too.

Everything else is constant - the damage to buildings in the area, the symbolism of the attack on the WTC/Pentagon, the disruption to the Economy, the implications for the stock market.

The only difference attacking later in the day, according to you, would be that more people would die.

If you're saying that both attacks are logistically congruent, then you're implying that they chose the earlier time simply because less people would be killed.

That's why I pushed the point. I wanted to know if that's what you thought.

However, you then posted this:

"Do I think they meant to spare people ? no fucking way"

So wtf do you believe :blink:


Either you think I'm right and that there is a logistical reason for the earlier attack or you think that the terrorists deliberately set out to end 'only' 3,000 lives rather than 30,000 lives.

[RioDeLeo]

:nono:


:angry2:


:nono:


:mad3:


:nono:


:swear:


:nono:


:boxing:


:sadwalk:

[peat moss]

:angry2:


:nono:


:mad3:


:nono:


:swear:


:nono:


:boxing:


:sadwalk:


I'm sorry for being simplistic but it's always sad to hear someone lost their life needlessly. But what was the fellow thinking ?



Running from the police ,being a black person, with a heavy padded coat in warm weather with wires hanging out of the pockets ? Electrician or not but it does sound wierd no ? Sorry but your responce belongs in the lounge ,

[GepperRankins]

Fuck off yourself.

In regards to what I posted, I have no idea why the terrorists that attacked NY and Washington DC chose the time they did, but their attack was not only against civiallians, but against our financial center. While I would maintain that a terrorists ways of thinking, trying to terrorize people so they can have their way is totally stupid, the planning behind such an event is hardly such, and there is no way you'll make me beleive they didn't know that atleast 100,000 people worked in the Twin Towers alone.
Do I think they meant to spare people ? no fucking way. However there was more to their agenda.

Military Response ? are you joking ?? You think the time of day would effect that ? I just was in Washington DC July 4th weekend, Flights are around the clock at Andrews Air Force Base, as they are in most bases.

Airport security ? There was very little security until after 911

plane time table and fuel.... As I said there are many flights from the East Coast to the West Coast, and they all would have been loaded with fuel, which is precisely why they chose those flights. So while I have no answer to why they chose their time table, neither do you. I do know if I only wanted to kill people alone, without any other factor, you had better keep an eye on your water supply.
Those were examples I put forward, to try to illustrate other factors involved. Of course there are more but I don't know them as I've never planned such an attack.

Now, I'm not trying to have you believe that the terrorists didn't know that there was 100,000 people working there - quite the opposite, of course they knew.

You've posted your opinion that the time of the attack would make no difference logistically, at least you've refuted my points.

So, they knew that attacking in the afternoon would cause circa 30,000 deaths and they knew attacking in the morning would cause circa 3000 deaths. You knew this too.

Everything else is constant - the damage to buildings in the area, the symbolism of the attack on the WTC/Pentagon, the disruption to the Economy, the implications for the stock market.

The only difference attacking later in the day, according to you, would be that more people would die.

If you're saying that both attacks are logistically congruent, then you're implying that they chose the earlier time simply because less people would be killed.

That's why I pushed the point. I wanted to know if that's what you thought.

However, you then posted this:

"Do I think they meant to spare people ? no fucking way"

So wtf do you believe :blink:


Either you think I'm right and that there is a logistical reason for the earlier attack or you think that the terrorists deliberately set out to end 'only' 3,000 lives rather than 30,000 lives.
3000 lives live on tv is worth a million at the other side of the world. remember the article i linked you? 10000 lives and you didn't even know about it.


maybe that's what he means :unsure:

[Barbarossa]

This makes more sense to me. The same was true with what happened in NY September 11th. Yes, lots of lives were lost, but it could have been much more worse if those buildings had been hit later in the afternoon. instead of over 3,000, it could have been more than 30,000 :(

I thought it was the case that if the towers had fallen straight away, without that long delay, the death toll would have been 10,000+ ?

I think this would be true if the attacks had been at any time between about 9 am and 5 pm.. :unsure:

Don't discount the magnificent job the rescuers did in clearing those towers as quickly as possible, many of them losing their lives in the process. :(

The towers would always have been a number one target for terrorists; a combination of the number of people working there, the fact that it was in the heart of the financial district, and their prominence on the skyline. I still can't look at a picture of Manhattan now without noticing what is missing. :(

[JPaul]

Running from the police ,being a black person, with a heavy padded coat in warm weather with wires hanging out of the pockets ? Electrician or not but it does sound wierd no ? Sorry but your responce belongs in the lounge ,

I say again this man was not black

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41337000/jpg/_41337183_menezes203.jpg

[Busyman]

Fuck off yourself.

In regards to what I posted, I have no idea why the terrorists that attacked NY and Washington DC chose the time they did, but their attack was not only against civiallians, but against our financial center. While I would maintain that a terrorists ways of thinking, trying to terrorize people so they can have their way is totally stupid, the planning behind such an event is hardly such, and there is no way you'll make me beleive they didn't know that atleast 100,000 people worked in the Twin Towers alone.
Do I think they meant to spare people ? no fucking way. However there was more to their agenda.

Military Response ? are you joking ?? You think the time of day would effect that ? I just was in Washington DC July 4th weekend, Flights are around the clock at Andrews Air Force Base, as they are in most bases.

Airport security ? There was very little security until after 911

plane time table and fuel.... As I said there are many flights from the East Coast to the West Coast, and they all would have been loaded with fuel, which is precisely why they chose those flights. So while I have no answer to why they chose their time table, neither do you. I do know if I only wanted to kill people alone, without any other factor, you had better keep an eye on your water supply.
Those were examples I put forward, to try to illustrate other factors involved. Of course there are more but I don't know them as I've never planned such an attack.

Now, I'm not trying to have you believe that the terrorists didn't know that there was 100,000 people working there - quite the opposite, of course they knew.

You've posted your opinion that the time of the attack would make no difference logistically, at least you've refuted my points.

So, they knew that attacking in the afternoon would cause circa 30,000 deaths and they knew attacking in the morning would cause circa 3000 deaths. You knew this too.

Everything else is constant - the damage to buildings in the area, the symbolism of the attack on the WTC/Pentagon, the disruption to the Economy, the implications for the stock market.

The only difference attacking later in the day, according to you, would be that more people would die.

If you're saying that both attacks are logistically congruent, then you're implying that they chose the earlier time simply because less people would be killed.

That's why I pushed the point. I wanted to know if that's what you thought.

However, you then posted this:

"Do I think they meant to spare people ? no fucking way"

So wtf do you believe :blink:


Either you think I'm right and that there is a logistical reason for the earlier attack or you think that the terrorists deliberately set out to end 'only' 3,000 lives rather than 30,000 lives.
You sure are arguing nothing.

If the terrorists attacked at fucking 10am and he remarks that if they attacked at 5pm it would have been worse, it doesn't mean "man they spared more lives by doing it earlier."

It means if they'd did it later simply more people would have been fucked up.
That is all. I don't know how you are reading anything else into it. :wacko:

[DanB]

Running from the police ,being a black person, with a heavy padded coat in warm weather with wires hanging out of the pockets ? Electrician or not but it does sound wierd no ? Sorry but your responce belongs in the lounge ,

I say again this man was not black

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41337000/jpg/_41337183_menezes203.jpg

He's about as black as I am :frusty:

[Busyman]

I say again this man was not black

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41337000/jpg/_41337183_menezes203.jpg

He's about as black as I am :frusty:
Especially with all that sun on him. :dry:

[DanB]

I don't understand.

The sun makes him look lighter you mean? I have seen different pictures of him on the news and in the papers and he still looks the same colour as me

[Busyman]

I don't understand.

The sun makes him look lighter you mean? I have seen different pictures of him on the news and in the papers and he still looks the same colour as me
I see.

Looking at the left pf the picture (less sun), he is rather "light skinded".

Why'd they have ta kill dat white man?

[Rat Faced]

I dunno what the fuck to believe anymore, i want to see the CCTV footage...


1st.... he was in a Heavy Coat and jumping a barrier, running from us, warned and was directly connected to the attack.

then: Ooops, he wasnt connected at all, he was a Brazilian, but we arent gonna change our "shoot to kill" policy...

then: well, we've nearly shot 7 other people so far and followed another 250 because we thought they might be suicide bombers...

then: we dont have a "shoot to kill" policy now, we use Tasars..

then: Well, actually, he wasnt wearing a heavy coat or jumping a barrier either, and no there wasnt any warnings..... but he was an illegal immigrant, the visa stamps in his passport were forged..


I want to know wtf happened now, it seems every time the Met open their gobs, someone points out they're talking shit, so they change the story.. :unsure:

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

I watched that video of the gunship mowing down those people.....and it really didnt bother me at all. There was obviously a reason for it. Just my opinion.

[Barbarossa]

I watched that video of the gunship mowing down those people.....and it really didnt bother me at all. There was obviously a reason for it. Just my opinion.

eh? :huh:

[JPaul]

I watched that video of the gunship mowing down those people.....and it really didnt bother me at all. There was obviously a reason for it. Just my opinion.

eh? :huh:
Seconded.

[MCHeshPants420]

eh? :huh:
Seconded.

Feck, they really have beefed up security if they are using gunships.

[DanB]

Seconded.

Feck, they really have beefed up security if they are using gunships.

F'king fare dodgers :dry:

[peat moss]

I don't understand.

The sun makes him look lighter you mean? I have seen different pictures of him on the news and in the papers and he still looks the same colour as me



Sorry had n't seen a picture of the poor bastard till now. My apologies but the newspaper story I read sure gave me that impression . :frusty:

[Rat Faced]

Well, now that more details have come out, it appears that the Met were lying through their teeth...

Remember the original story?

He was a strong suspect, wearing a heavy bulky coat, running from the police, jumping the barrier and had wires hanging from his pack..

The 1st thing that came out was he was innocent...



Now it's been confirmed he was wearing a light denim jacket, over a tee-shirt... perfectly normal clothing for the weather.

He left his flat and the police that were watching the block DID NOT confirm his identity, they stated they couldnt and someone else would need to check him out.

He walked slowly to catch his bus and the policemen following DID NOT confirm his identity, mentioning only that he had "Mongolian Eyes".

He got off the bus, walked to the Tube station and picked up one of the free papers then used his Oyster Card to go through the barriers and walked towards the platform.

A train was on the way into the station so we quickened his step in order to catch it... note, he DIDNT RUN, he started walking a little quicker to catch his train.

Once on the train, one of the police grabbed and held him by the arms, whilst another shot him 7 times in the head from 12 inches away... note the distance, and the copper MISSED 3 times, in addition to the 7 times he was shot.


The Police were all plainsclothesmen, and according to witnesses did at no time identitfy themselves or give any warnings.

Note also, that the police were all in possesion of photographs of the 2 suspects in the block of flats... and they looked nowt like the guy shot, except dark hair and dark eyes..


Still trust your "shoot to kill" policy by these people?

Like i said before, i dont trust half our squaddies with guns.. never mind the coppers. :ph34r:

[manker]

If that is exactly how it happened, then I think that the police have broken the law.

I don't trust the shoot to kill policy and didn't earlier in the thread, however, I think that there must be more to it than what is written above.

Even in the heightened state of security that must have been prevalent on the tube, to kill someone simply because he had dark eyes, dark hair and lived approximate to an address found in a rucksack of one of the failed bombers is completely ludicrous.

[JPaul]

RF,

Can you tell us where you got this version from. I would be interested to see the source.

Cheers

[Rat Faced]

Channel 4 news got hold of documents, witness statements plus photos from a source with the Police Complaints people... the Home Office and Police both refused to make a statement..

ie: It was Leaked

This was on the news at 7 O'Clock this evening.

Theres a summary here (http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1677571), however there was a 15 minute in-depth report on the TV.

One of the officers watching the block of flats was having a piss, erm i mean "relieving himself" when the guy left the flat. :unsure:

[manker]

From Channel4 News:

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1677571

Slightly different to your post, RF.

Here they say that the firearms officers got what they described as 'positive identification' before they shot him - also says that he did run.

[Rat Faced]

This is why i prefer the in-depth reports on TV ;)

I'm sure, as it took up so much coverage (it was the lead story) on the 7 O'Clock news.. it'll be repeated later tonight on both ITV and Channel 4.

As it was ITN that got the leak, the BBC may be a little slower on this one...

The guy getting interviewed (forget who it was, but assume he was from the Police Complaints Authority) said that he "speeded up, but wasnt running" ... i got the impression that he was doing that half jog we all do when hoping not to miss the train pulling into the station, but not wanting to look a prick.

[manker]

i got the impression that he was doing that half jog we all do when hoping not to miss the train pulling into the station, but not wanting to look a prick.:lol:

I know the one :D

===

All the same, you took pains to point out that at the time he left his residence the police could not get positive ID on him yet you made no mention of them getting positive identification of him before they did shoot him (presumably some time in between him leaving his home and getting on the tube).

Not really an unbiased account that you posted for us. As I say, I really don't like what happened and posted to that effect before this slant on the story came out but when the story includes that small piece of information, it makes the armed policeman's position more tenable.

Seems to be an intelligence problem - giving the footsoldiers the wrong information.

[JPaul]

RF

You are an ex-squaddie, you know the way it works.

The footsoldiers must be willing to follow orders as they are given, knowing that they will not have all of the information available. They need to trust their superiors, otherwise they are the wrong person for the job.

I remain of the opinion that this was a tragic accident, at a time when tension was high and the Police were in a no win situation.

[DanB]

I couldn't give a fuck, they are acting in their best intrests to protect me :dry:

[sparsely]

all I have to say, England, is...
























Welcome to Texas! :D

[Rat Faced]

i got the impression that he was doing that half jog we all do when hoping not to miss the train pulling into the station, but not wanting to look a prick.:lol:

I know the one :D

===

All the same, you took pains to point out that at the time he left his residence the police could not get positive ID on him yet you made no mention of them getting positive identification of him before they did shoot him (presumably some time in between him leaving his home and getting on the tube).

Not really an unbiased account that you posted for us. As I say, I really don't like what happened and posted to that effect before this slant on the story came out but when the story includes that small piece of information, it makes the armed policeman's position more tenable.

Seems to be an intelligence problem - giving the footsoldiers the wrong information.

I see what you mean..

To clarify..

The Police Officers all had pictures of the suspects, in addition the armed police were informed that all the intelligence would be "Direct"..

ie: If required, a positive ID would already have been made, from one of the direct observers.

None of the direct observers positively IDed him. Indeed the original ones watching the flat specifically stated there was doubt as to his identity.

Someone in an office ignored this and gave the orders..

Someone held the guys arms while someone else shot him in the head from 12 inches away 7 times, missing 3 times and therefore endangering others on the train.


The fact that there was a mistake is bad enough, however how anyone can be complacent over the outright lies that came from the Met to try and cover it all up is beyond me.


Danb, i hope you feel that way if the next time its you or someone you know.

As has been pointed out, he hardly looked like someone from the Middle East, a number of people have commented upon how "white" he looked.


JP, I would agree with you except:

a/ They all had photo's of the suspects and not one of them questioned the fact he wasnt one of them.. except for the guys who were watching the flat (the main observers) who were ignored. Squaddies dont blindly follow orders in the British Army, they are trained to use their initiative. Remember more than a few were returned from Iraq because they refused to follow what they considered illegal orders and were not charged.

b/ It was quite plain he was wearing light clothing, it was also quite unlikely that he could have been carrying a bomb under a light Jacket.

c/ They were ordered to stop him going into the Tube network, and he should have been stopped prior to entering the Tube Station. Instead they followed him onto a Tube Train, despite the fact he could have been stopped at any point.. This increased the danger to the public if he was a terrorist and reduced their options.

d/ They did not identify themselves as Police Officers, nor did they give a warning. Squaddies would have done both of these, as to have done otherwise is illegal.. Remember Squaddies have been jailed for firing at cars driving AT them in Northern Ireland, because they gave no warning first. ie: When directly threatened.

e/ If someone was holding his arms, and others were within 12 inches of him.. why was he shot 7 times in the head? There was 5 policemen around him, and he was held. A squaddie would not have fired unless they had to, due to the risk of those around him. The fact that they missed 3 times at that distance, shows the risk involved.

f/ They were so quick off the mark with the cover-up, that someone must have known they'd fucked up almost immediatly... otherwise why lie?

[DanB]

Danb, i hope you feel that way if the next time its you or someone you know.

As it happens I do did know someone that was killed in the 7/7 tube bombs:(

[sparsely]

As has been pointed out, he hardly looked like someone from the Middle East, a number of people have commented upon how "white" he looked.


so it would've been justifiable if he had a darker complexion? :\

[manker]

As has been pointed out, he hardly looked like someone from the Middle East, a number of people have commented upon how "white" he looked.


so it would've been justifiable if he had a darker complexion? :\You took that totally out of context.

It would have been easier to understand how the mistake was made if the guy who was shot had a darker complexion, since the suspect's (Hussain Osman's) complexion was darker than the guy who was shot.

OK?

RF makes several good points, I am clueless as to why this guy was shot.

[DanB]

Mistakes happen

[manker]

Mistakes happenIndeed, but we can't just shrug and say say 'Ah well, maybe we'll get the right guy next time'.

We have to look into why the mistake was made and ensure that it is much less likely to occur again.

The amount of mistakes that appear to have been made is appalling.

[DanB]

Just 'cos Wales isn't likely to get attacked :rolleyes:

[manker]

I'm sorry, I didn't really that you had to live within the confines of the M25 to qualify to comment on this matter.

[DanB]

I'm sorry, I didn't really that you had to live within the confines of the M25 to qualify to comment on this matter.

Didn't really what?

[manker]

That Channel4 link I posted earlier has been updated - it seems as if the Police did give warning of who they were, it was agreed previously that police would shoot a suspect if he ran and he stood up then advanced towards the police who were trying to apprehend him in the carriage of the tube train:


Police had agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran ... "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat.

"Almost simultaneously armed officers were provided with positive identification."

A member of the surveillance team is quoted in the report. He said: "I heard shouting which included the word `police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. RF, either that TV report you watched earlier was bunk, or your recollection of it is pretty poor.

Now it's totally different to what you posted earlier.

http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/dabs.gif

[manker]

I'm sorry, I didn't really that you had to live within the confines of the M25 to qualify to comment on this matter.

Didn't really what?
Should have said realise.

I didn't realise that you had to live within the confines of the M25 in order to qualify to give an opinion on the matter.

[DanB]

Ah, my bad for picking up on your spelling/grammar mistake :blushing:

[manker]

Ah, my bad for picking up on your spelling/grammar mistake :blushing:That's fine.

Just so long as the counter-sarcasm came thro' okay ;)

[JPaul]

SO19 Homepage (http://www.met.police.uk/so19/) if anyone is interested.

[whypikonme]

Wednesday August 17, 2005
The Guardian

The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night.

It also emerged in the leaked documents that early allegations that he was running away from police at the time of the shooting were untrue and that he appeared unaware that he was being followed.

But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train

The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: "I heard shouting which included the word 'police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 [firearms squad] officers ... I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."

Full Story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html)

[Barbarossa]

The whole thing is a sorry mess. Somebody somewhere has fucked up in a big way, and has to be held accountable.

But I don't know who. :(

To shoot him while he was restrained, and clearly not carrying an explosive device, and so not a threat to the public, is obscene.

In fact, it's murder.

[whypikonme]

The whole thing is a sorry mess. Somebody somewhere has fucked up in a big way, and has to be held accountable.

But I don't know who. :(


Why don't we start with the lying fucking police?

They are the ones that came up with all this bullshit, to defend their actions, they should be tried for murder.

[manker]

The whole thing is a sorry mess. Somebody somewhere has fucked up in a big way, and has to be held accountable.

But I don't know who. :(


Why don't we start with the lying fucking police?

They are the ones that came up with all this bullshit, to defend their actions, they should be tried for murder.I don't think the police on the ground did much wrong. They had their orders and instructions so had little alternative to shoot him.

They were ordered to shoot a suspect if positive ID had been provided and the suspect ran - he ran.

They identified themselves by shouting 'police' yet he still advanced toward them. Could he have been carrying a small incendiary device? The officer who shot him certainly seemed to think so and I would say that he has specific training in this field.

Given their orders and given the positive ID that they received, I cannot think too badly of them.



Higher up the chain of command, tho', the people who issued the blanket statement 'Shoot the suspect if he runs' and the people who wrongly identified the man as Hussain Osman are culpable.

Also, the cover-up and misinformation distributed by the police (one presumes) about him jumping the barrier, having a heavy coat on etc. -this needs to be dealt with in an official manner.

[JPaul]

Was it the Police who issued the original version of what happened, or was that put together by reporters.

It is unlike the Met to issue statements regarding this type of thing if they themselves have not held an enquiry

[whypikonme]

They were ordered to shoot a suspect if positive ID had been provided and the suspect ran - he ran.

He didn't run, only when he got to the platform and the train was there with the doors open.

They identified themselves by shouting 'police' yet he still advanced toward them. Could he have been carrying a small incendiary device? The officer who shot him certainly seemed to think so and I would say that he has specific training in this field.

He was restrained, and was wearing a denim jacket, he in no way matched the other bombers.

Given their orders and given the positive ID that they received, I cannot think too badly of them.

What positive ID? The cop who was supposed to identify him was having a piss!


A surveillance officer admitted in a witness statement that he was unable to positively identify Mr de Menezes as a suspect because the officer had been relieving himself when the Brazilian left the block of flats where he lived.

[manker]

They were ordered to shoot a suspect if positive ID had been provided and the suspect ran - he ran.

He didn't run, only when he got to the platform and the train was there with the doors open.

Yeah ... he ran.

===

They identified themselves by shouting 'police' yet he still advanced toward them. Could he have been carrying a small incendiary device? The officer who shot him certainly seemed to think so and I would say that he has specific training in this field.

He was restrained, and was wearing a denim jacket, he in no way matched the other bombers.

That doesn't mean he definitely wasn't carrying a bomb.

===

Given their orders and given the positive ID that they received, I cannot think too badly of them.

What positive ID? The cop who was supposed to identify him was having a piss!

I'm going by the ITN news report that I posted earlier. It did say that they received positive ID at around the same time he started running. It would be foolish to think that only one person in the whole operation (the one that was having a slash) would be authorised to give a positive ID.
...

[manker]

Was it the Police who issued the original version of what happened, or was that put together by reporters.

It is unlike the Met to issue statements regarding this type of thing if they themselves have not held an enquiryIt did run in all newspapers, so it's unlikely they all made up the coat and barrier leap story.

I can only assume it came from an official source.

Naturally, I stand to be corrected on that assumption.

[JPaul]

Was it the Police who issued the original version of what happened, or was that put together by reporters.

It is unlike the Met to issue statements regarding this type of thing if they themselves have not held an enquiryIt did run in all newspapers, so it's unlikely they all made up the coat and barrier leap story.

I can only assume it came from an official source.

Naturally, I stand to be corrected on that assumption.
It may have come from an "official source" that does not mean it was the Police. It may have come from Journalists speaking to "eye witnesses" who would tell different reporters the same story. It may have come from a news service, which the others picked up on. The story could have come from a variety of places, in fact it probably did and was cobbled together from there. My question is, how much of it came from the Police.

To me, only guessing here, if it was an official source it would be more likely to be political than the Met. They are usually accused of not releasing statements quickly enough, because of their internal enquiries. It just seems unlikely to me that in this instance they would break with that practice.

Like you I stand to be corrected.

If someone knows where the original version came from I would appreciate it.

[manker]

It did run in all newspapers, so it's unlikely they all made up the coat and barrier leap story.

I can only assume it came from an official source.

Naturally, I stand to be corrected on that assumption.
It may have come from an "official source" that does not mean it was the Police. It may have come from Journalists speaking to "eye witnesses" who would tell different reporters the same story. It may have come from a news service, which the others picked up on. The story could have come from a variety of places, in fact it probably did and was cobbled together from there. My question is, how much of it came from the Police.

To me, only guessing here, if it was an official source it would be more likely to be political than the Met. They are usually accused of not releasing statements quickly enough, because of their internal enquiries. It just seems unlikely to me that in this instance they would break with that practice.

Like you I stand to be corrected.

If someone knows where the original version came from I would appreciate it.
I've just watched the BBC News.

It seems the MET released a statement shortly after the shooting saying that he was shot partly due to his behaviour in the station and the attire he was wearing at the time. The Commisioner of the MET, forgotten his name, said that he didn't obey the directions of his oficers.

At no time did the MET say that he jumped over a barrier nor that he ran. However, commentators on the News reported that the MET could have done more to dispell these rumours which originated from (unreliable) eyewitnesses - instead they chose to stay silent.

So basically, it seems as if the MET have issued an official statement that was, at best, partly incorrect - at worst, downright misleading.

The Press, it appears, used that statement by the MET and fleshed it out with unsubstantiated reports of duffle-coats and barrier leaps.

[Rat Faced]

On the day of the incident, Ian Blaire said only that someone had been shot; that he was a direct suspect, and couldnt comment further until he had read the Police Officers reports.

The day after, in a TV interview, he said it was mis-identification and mentioned specifically the coat and his actions. The Interview certainly mentioned everything that had been reported, the only thing he said was incorrect was the identity.

It has now emerged that the Met tried to stop the inquiry, and was over ruled by the home Office.


manker,

I didnt hear about the claim he was actually sitting down on the train until tonight... this is obviously an emerging story with more and more things coming out. On the 7 O'Clock news yesterday it was definitly stated that he hadnt been running, however it was implied about the hurrying.. as i stated last night.

Also, re: the warning... The Public Witness Statements did not mention any warnings, none were heard. Yours is from a Police Statement, which i hadnt heard until now.

I also did not hear anything about him getting up and approaching the police.. not surprising as i didnt hear he was sitting down as i said.



This gets more and more interesting... there has obviously been an almighty cock-up and the umbrellas are up. Therefore i will give more weight to witness statements than officers atm.. ;)

You will notice that there is now pressure to charge the police involved with Criminal Charges.

Good, the minimum is Manslaughter.. however, it was cold blooded and intended so i hope they get Murder.

[JPaul]

manker

That seems much more likely, thanks for that.

"However, commentators on the News reported that the MET could have done more to dispell these rumours which originated from (unreliable) eyewitnesses - instead they chose to stay silent."

The staying silent is what I would have expected. To release a quick, short statement soon after the event to give the bare facts. To then wait until they have made their own enquiries before making a more comprehensive one.

I think the newspapers are deflecting here, it was them who misled the public and they are now saying "Ah, but the Met should have told the public we were printing nonsense". It seems it was their reporting which was at most fault.

As an aside, one doesn't report what the Met (or anyone else) should have done, one opines it. One reports what they did do.

[DanB]

So whats the difference between the Police killing someone by mistake and the Army killing people by mistake?

8 bullets in head compared to large bomb on house or an Embassy perhaps ?

[Rat Faced]

So whats the difference between the Police killing someone by mistake and the Army killing people by mistake?

8 bullets in head compared to large bomb on house or an Embassy perhaps ?

Absolutely none... you have been reading my posts re: Iraq? :P

[JPaul]

there has obviously been an almighty cock-up and the umbrellas are up. Therefore i will give more weight to witness statements than officers atm.. ;)


That's a matter for you, however I am more likely to listen to the highly trained, experienced, professional witnesses. Rather than the panicking members of the public in an entirely strange and stressful situation.

[manker]

manker,

I didnt hear about the claim he was actually sitting down on the train until tonight... this is obviously an emerging story with more and more things coming out. On the 7 O'Clock news yesterday it was definitly stated that he hadnt been running, however it was implied about the hurrying.. as i stated last night.

Also, re: the warning... The Public Witness Statements did not mention any warnings, none were heard. Yours is from a Police Statement, which i hadnt heard until now.

I also did not hear anything about him getting up and approaching the police.. not surprising as i didnt hear he was sitting down as i said.



This gets more and more interesting... there has obviously been an almighty cock-up and the umbrellas are up. Therefore i will give more weight to witness statements than officers atm.. ;)

You will notice that there is now pressure to charge the police involved with Criminal Charges.

Good, the minimum is Manslaughter.. however, it was cold blooded and intended so i hope they get Murder.It's really difficult to keep an open mind on this. On one hand you've got multiple unreliable 'eyewitness' accounts, as reported by the popular press. On the other you've got the MET putting up a smokescreen and telling, what amounts to, barefaced lies.

You're right, new details are emerging all of the time. in the hour or so last night between when I posted that CH4 link and when I subsequently referenced it. The details had altered drastically.

I'm going to sit on the fence wrt to the armed police on the ground til all the details are known. However, I definitely believe inexcusable errors were made at a higher, intelligence, level.

[DanB]

This gets more and more interesting... there has obviously been an almighty cock-up and the umbrellas are up. Therefore i will give more weight to witness statements than officers atm..

The same ones who mentioned the jumping and heavy coats in the first place?

[Rat Faced]

highly trained, experienced, professional witnesses.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[DanB]

However, I definitely believe inexcusable errors were made at a higher, intelligence, level.

Have you seen Team America: World Police? :lol:

[Rat Faced]

Dan, shhhhh

dont let 'em know thats how the world actually see 'em :ph34r:

[manker]

manker

That seems much more likely, thanks for that.

"However, commentators on the News reported that the MET could have done more to dispell these rumours which originated from (unreliable) eyewitnesses - instead they chose to stay silent."

The staying silent is what I would have expected. To release a quick, short statement soon after the event to give the bare facts. To then wait until they have made their own enquiries before making a more comprehensive one.

I think the newspapers are deflecting here, it was them who misled the public and they are now saying "Ah, but the Met should have told the public we were printing nonsense". It seems it was their reporting which was at most fault.

As an aside, one doesn't report what the Met (or anyone else) should have done, one opines it. One reports what they did do.I agree with that.

The commentator that made the remarks I mentioned probably had his colleagues in mind. It wasn't only the newpapers who went with the duffle-coat/up and over the barrier story.

Much more ostentatious a story, that.

Btw, the fact that the MET did release that inaccurate statement could invoke a corporate manslaughter/murder charge. It seems they would have been much better advised to follow with convention and say nothing until their internal reports were completed.

[manker]

However, I definitely believe inexcusable errors were made at a higher, intelligence, level.

Have you seen Team America: World Police? :lol:I downloaded it, but my HD<--->brain osmosis experiment still hasn't worked.

You know what I'm like with films :pinch:

[JPaul]

It seems they would have been much better advised to follow with convention and say nothing until their internal reports were completed.

I think it was possibly the very special circumstances which led to that.

There would have been public outcry if they had made no statement, given the recent attacks on London.

That wasn't enough for the press, so they embelished it with "eye witness" accounts. Which keeps them in the clear, they report what they are told. However I would be interested to read the questions which illicited the answers, which led to the version reported.

[whypikonme]

That's a matter for you, however I am more likely to listen to the highly trained, experienced, professional witnesses.

l can see you've never had a run-in with the Met. They have a reputation for fitting people up, and lying, and corruption, and even planning and executing robberies and break-ins.

As someone said earlier, the only time anyone has mentioned the word 'police' was the cop who was restraining him, and he was unsure, "I heard shouting which included the word 'police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket."

l think it's very unlikely they warned him, because, if this were a bomber, it could have made him trigger the bomb.

[whypikonme]

It now seems there were two groups of police, a surveillance team, who thought he was no threat, and a firearms team. The surveillance team allowed him on the train because they felt he was not acting suspiciously, nor was he carrying a bomb. The firearms team didn't appear until he was on the train, (this could be the jumping over the barrier bit, as they were late arriving), and were told of his whereabouts by the surveillance team. A surveillance officer then grabbed him as he stood up, and two members of the firearms team opened fire.

The surveillance team are said to be furious with the firearms team, and look like they will break ranks and not support them in any enquiry.

[JPaul]

It now seems there were two groups of police, a surveillance team, who thought he was no threat, and a firearms team. The surveillance team allowed him on the train because they felt he was not acting suspiciously, nor was he carrying a bomb. The firearms team didn't appear until he was on the train, (this could be the jumping over the barrier bit, as they were late arriving), and were told of his whereabouts by the surveillance team. A surveillance officer then grabbed him as he stood up, and two members of the firearms team opened fire.

The surveillance team are said to be furious with the firearms team, and look like they will break ranks and not support them in any enquiry.
That's interesting, could you tell me where you heard / read / saw it.

[whypikonme]

Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553440,00.html)