Several explosions on London Underground

[rk]

And rk - I invoke Godwin's Law. Please leave this thread.

One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention
Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion
you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a
long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. This FAQ
is an attempt to set straight as much of the history and meaning of Godwin's
Law as possible, and hopefully encourage users to invoke it a bit more
sparingly. Of course, knowing Usenet, it won't do an ounce of good...

http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html

It saddens me to think a member whom I respect holds you in such high esteem that I am beholden to keep my reply to the posting of quotes. The sadness doesn't stem from frustration but that your request appears to be the result of reading statements directed at anyone but yourself. The fact that a person could be so narrow minded as to abhor the openly expressed views of another (wait, let me check the title, yes, this is the "opinions" forum) is sobering indeed. Perhaps if you are too offended, you could overlook any post authored by "rk."

Also from the "Godwin's Law FAQ" page:

4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?

The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.

So, what this means in practical terms:

o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.

Since the originator has not seen fit to close it, I recommend the sensible participants who feel so inclined, to simply "walk away" thus closing the discussion. If they don't, it may serve as an indicator that the thread "still has some life to it."

The man who emerged Friday morning was wearing a padded, blue fleece jacket and dark baseball cap that covered his features and made him appear suspicious as well as harder to identify, police officials said. Officers from a specialist undercover firearms unit trailed after him as he took a bus to the Stockwell station. As he headed into the station, the officers bolted after him, and the man ran toward the platform, witnesses said. He stumbled into a subway car and three undercover operatives with handguns piled on top of him.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/12211175.htm

The Muslim Council of Britain expressed "its deepest condolences to the family of the innocent man."
Iqbal Sacranie, the council's secretary general, said it was "absolutely vital that the utmost care is taken to ensure that innocent people are not killed due to over-zealousness."
The council said that since the Stockwell shooting it has received several reports of young Muslim men "going about their everyday business" who were forced to the ground and searched by plainclothes officers, and that many Muslims in London are now fearful.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/12207754.htm

Mark Whitby was on the train when he heard people shouting "get down, get down" and an Asian man, heavily built and wearing a baseball cap and a thick padded jacket, ran on to the train, pursued by three plain clothes police officers, one of them carrying a handgun.
Mr Whitby said the young Asian man was shot five times at close range after he had jumped on a train.
"An Asian guy ran on to the train. As he ran, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes police officers."
He said the man tripped and was also pushed to the floor, then one of the officers shot him five times.
"One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand.
"They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead, five shots, he's dead."
Mr Whitby said: "As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified."

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1670842005

What do we have here? "undercover officers with handguns," "man held down," "five shots from same gun," "men being forced to the ground and searched by un-uniformed officers," and a group of posters who generally see no problem with their own civil rights or the conduct of the authorities; altogether an evil portent for the world my son is growing up into.

 

[TVRKing]

What do we have here? "undercover officers with handguns," "man held down," "five shots from same gun," "men being forced to the ground and searched by un-uniformed officers," and a group of posters who generally see no problem with their own civil rights or the conduct of the authorities; altogether an evil portent for the world my son is growing up into.

Obviously somebody $hit-stirring, giving the police a bad name.

 

[rk]

Obviously somebody $hit-stirring, giving the police a bad name.

I would say the problem stems from a much deeper source, the police are, as always "the arm of the law." Better we go about our business and trust in the authorities to sort it all out, eh? As officer Barbrady would put it, "move along people, there's nothing to see here. If you don't I'll be forced to use deadly force." Anyone who agrees with Barbrady would serve their families well by reading works by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and other signers of the Declaration of Independance.
Of course, it has been more than a couple of centuries since the people of England freed themselves from the yoke of tyrrany.

 

[Famine]

And your eyewitness says...

"As the man got on the train I looked at his face."

Yet describes the Brazilian Mr. Menendez as an "Asian man".



Doesn't that kind of crap on anything else he has to say? He can describe his expression and the weapons people used but, despite a full face view, misses his ethnic origin by 7,000 miles.


The evil portent for the world your son is growing into is that there are people who'd rather belief that all authority is corrupt (and all news-reporting agencies are not).

You still haven't addressed the point at hand though. He left a house under surveillance after the London Transport terrorist attacks two weeks ago, carrying a rucksack, such as the ones used in the London Transport terrorist attacks two weeks ago and, despite being able to speak English, ignored police warnings to halt, resisted arrest, ran from uniformed officers, headed straight for a Tube train (like the ones bombed in the terrorist attacks two weeks ago - remember those?), and ignored police warnings to stop or be shot.

What were the police supposed to think, exactly, without the benefits of hindsight? What would the lovely fluffy rk-cops have done? What happens the next time police follow someone in the same circumstances and decide not to shoot someone who IS a terrorist, and blows up a Tube train full of commuters?

What IS it that you want?


And please stop comparing us to the USA. Your legislation does not apply here. This thread is NOT about the USA.


Also, your attempts to Google for Godwin's Law are laughable and show you don't understand it. Godwin's Law states that as any discussion progresses, the likelihood of the mention of Hitler or Nazis increases to one. The corollary to that is that the first person who mentions Hitler or the Nazis in any discussion has run out of constructive things to say and is instead only interested in insulting people.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

It would appear that these officers were plain clothes and armed. This is very rare in UK and would make the officers very special. So I conceed to that point.

Eyewitness statements are extremely unreliable

Here's another for a laugh...

Another witness Teri Godly, said: "About eight or nine police with shotguns boarded after him and started shouting to us all 'get out, get out of the station'. People started screaming and we all started running quite calmly up the stairs.

Shotguns...

Here is something sobering...

Police are understood to be under orders to shoot to kill if they believe someone is about to detonate a bomb.

Jack Straw has defended the so-called "shoot-to-kill" policy adopted by police for dealing with suspected suicide bombers.
The Foreign Secretary said he "deeply regretted" the killing in London of an innocent Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, by armed officers who feared he might be about to detonate a bomb.
However he said that it was essential that police were able to deal effectively with the threat of a suicide attack.

The man in this incident was said to have "challenged" police, quite what that means, I don't know, but I know you just don't do that to a man with a gun.

 

[Famine]

It would appear that these officers were plain clothes and armed. This is very rare in UK and would make the officers very special. So I conceed to that point.

I wouldn't.

Plain clothes and armed is not CID. It's MI5 or the SAS/SBS (though what the SBS and SAS would be doing in London escapes me).

MI5 are not police and cannot be described as officers. "Officials" or "operatives", yes, but not officers (SAS can though).


So now we have one eyewitness on the train describing an Asian man with three "plain clothes police officers" on him, one with a "black automatic handgun", yet another eyewitness on the train describing eight policemen with shotguns. Shotguns.

*shakes head*

Eyewitnesses blow AND suck.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

MI5 are not police and cannot be described as officers. "Officials" or "operatives", yes, but not officers (SAS can though).

Yep, I'd agree it was MI5. You are right, they are military intelligence, and not the police. The press are still calling them police, it doesn't matter, the bottom line is...don't run from them! these guys are even better shots

Oh and here is the "Asian Man"...not! Eyewitnesses...always so accurate.

 

[rk]

Also, your attempts to Google for Godwin's Law are laughable and show you don't understand it. Godwin's Law states that as any discussion progresses, the likelihood of the mention of Hitler or Nazis increases to one. The corollary to that is that the first person who mentions Hitler or the Nazis in any discussion has run out of constructive things to say and is instead only interested in insulting people.

It is interesting you find fit to respond. I still say anyone who thinks a person should be justifiably killed based on his intellect is comparable to the authors of the holocaust.

And your eyewitness says...

"As the man got on the train I looked at his face."

Yet describes the Brazilian Mr. Menendez as an "Asian man".



Doesn't that kind of crap on anything else he has to say? He can describe his expression and the weapons people used but, despite a full face view, misses his ethnic origin by 7,000 miles.

Actually, he was the eyewitness for "The Scotsman" (assumedly representing the views of another formerly tyrannized ethnic group), I was simply quoting one of many sources.
Since you don't live in the same hemisphere as people from Brazil, you are perhaps spared the diversity of the populace. I have known many Hispanics who appear to have Asian features, in fact it is believed by many anthropologists that the Western Hemisphere was originally populated by peoples who originally lived in the part of the world now known as Asia, who traversed the upper rim of the Pacific Ocean by way of the Aleutians (where Claire Chenault was originally stationed) when it had a denser ice pack. Ye of boldface purple type may be surprised to learn that Condoleeza Rice, who's features appear decidedly Asian to me, is actually of African-American descent. Good thing I am not a professional racial profiler.

The evil portent for the world your son is growing into is that there are people who'd rather belief that all authority is corrupt (and all news-reporting agencies are not).

Some of us, thankfully, question authority with jaundiced eye, much as we do with mainstream media.

You still haven't addressed the point at hand though. He left a house under surveillance after the London Transport terrorist attacks two weeks ago, carrying a rucksack, such as the ones used in the London Transport terrorist attacks two weeks ago and, despite being able to speak English, ignored police warnings to halt, resisted arrest, ran from uniformed officers, headed straight for a Tube train (like the ones bombed in the terrorist attacks two weeks ago - remember those?), and ignored police warnings to stop or be shot.

Actually, I had, thank you for thoughtfully reviewing my posts. My question was, "how did he manage to get from a watched house, all the way into a crowded train before he was killed?" Especially in light of the fact that he had no bomb and therefore no immediate agenda. the rest of us seem to overlook that fact.

What were the police supposed to think, exactly, without the benefits of hindsight? What would the lovely fluffy rk-cops have done? What happens the next time police follow someone in the same circumstances and decide not to shoot someone who IS a terrorist, and blows up a Tube train full of commuters?

What IS it that you want?

For the authorities to act in a civilized manner that supports a free society, rather than condemns it. They could have stopped him upon exiting the front door (no, they wanted more "evidence"; to trail him, no doubt). They could have tasered him, they could do anything but further the efforts of the true terrorists. At the bare minimum, I would like people to recognize the true tragedy of the occurance, for the individual and the whole, and strive to seek the means that this will be the only one of its kind.

And please stop comparing us to the USA. Your legislation does not apply here. This thread is NOT about the USA.

The only real comparison is that we are able to almost communicate with the same language and that the desecendants of the tyrannized founding fathers are at war in a coalition with the descendants of those who were the tyrants.

 

[TVRKing]

Condoleeza Rice, who's features appear decidedly Asian to me, is actually of African-American descent.

I can't see any Asian in her whatsoever. I've always thought of her as an African-American.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Ye of boldface purple type may be surprised to learn that Condoleeza Rice, who's features appear decidedly Asian to me, is actually of African-American descent.

Are you serious?! I am beginning to doubt that you have even met anyone from India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, or indeed anywhere in the middle east.

Good thing I am not a professional racial profiler.

You got that right 👍

I posted a pic of the man above...he looks Caucasian, maybe a little south American, to call him Asian is more likely to down to the current stereotype connection between terrorists and Asians.

 

[Famine]

Since you don't live in the same hemisphere as people from Brazil, you are perhaps spared the diversity of the populace.

Something tells me you've never been to London.

 

[rk]

Are you serious?! I am beginning to doubt that you have even met anyone from India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, or indeed anywhere in the middle east.

You got that right 👍

I posted a pic of the man above...he looks Caucasian, maybe a little south American, to call him Asian is more likely to down to the current stereotype connection between terrorists and Asians.

Have you ever seen a Brazillian with a grimace of fear moments before his grisly death?
One thing that remains constant, while I express my views politically and culturally and use internet links to support my beliefs, the vast majority of the members here, rather than repond to my questions, "like how the frick did he get from a watched house into a packed train before being killed" or "why do we think it's ok to kill an innocent man in the name of democracy;" instead choose to defile my personal beliefs. It is downright sad, I must constantly remind myself of the unspoken masses for which I represent the only non-fanatical voice of civilized society.
In response to your pejorative statement, I have known many Saudi's that call me friend, good friends of my father actually. I had an Indian chemestry teacher, Miss Sayala, who pronounced an elemental metal "allu-mini-yum." And, although it was long ago, my parents used to host many foreign students, mostly from Japan and a country that was then called "Persia." My mother, in her 70's, still speaks lovingly of a woman named "Farah."
What all this has to do with the veracity of extra-judicial killings or train bombings escapes me.

 

[smellysocks12]

It doesn't matter whether the guy was Brazilian. If the guy was from Afghanistan and innocent it would have been just as sad to see him get shot. When you notice that you're being followed by 3 creepy men from the moment you leave your apartment building, you try to get away from them as well.

I don't know whether these special forces made it clear that they were police before they smacked him into the ground and shot his face to pulp. Probably not, because if the dude would have known they were law enforcers, he would have cooperated.

 

[rk]

Something tells me you've never been to London.

Perhaps if you donned one of ledheds tin hats, you would stop hearing "the voices."

 

[Famine]

Perhaps if you donned one of ledheds tin hats, you would stop hearing "the voices."

Something still tells me you've never been to London, and are avoiding the issue.

London isn't full of white, English people you know.

It doesn't matter whether the guy was Brazilian. If the guy was from Afghanistan and innocent it would have been just as sad to see him get shot. When you notice that you're being followed by 3 creepy men from the moment you leave your apartment building, you try to get away from them as well.

I don't know whether these special forces made it clear that they were police before they smacked him into the ground and shot his face to pulp. Probably not, because if the dude would have known they were law enforcers, he would have cooperated.

The police issued three audible warnings to him. He spoke English. The pursuit begain when UNIFORMED officers attempted to detain him and he fled - straight to a Tube station. Given that he's just left a house under surveillance in connection with the London Transport bombings, resists arrest, runs from uniformed police and heads straight to an Underground train (like the ones people wearing backpacks blew up), what would you have wanted the cops to do?

Out of interest, who was it who shot his face to a pulp? The plain clothes operative with the black automatic pistol, or the eight uniformed policemen with shotguns?


The bottom line is, he left a house which was being investigated. He was wearing clothing similar to terrorist bombers (trenchcoat in summer, backpack). Uniformed officers attempted to arrest him. He fled from them and went straight to the tube - the site of 8 bombings/attempted bombings this month. What would you have done on the basis of this information? No-one seems willing to answer this.


I'd rather the police shot one innocent man under the impression he was a terrorist, than let one terrorist go under the impression he's an innocent man - allowing him to nuke a train full of people.


Oh, and tasering someone when there's a distinct possibility they're wearing crude explosive devices, triggered by an electrical detonator is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard expressed on this forum.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

What all this has to do with the veracity of extra-judicial killings or train bombings escapes me.

Because you are quoting an eyewitness
I am questioning his accuracy...gun/shotgun...Asian/Brazilian...uniform/plain clothes...held down and shot/running and shot. Oh who cares about accuracy, lets moan about the Police doing their job

While it is a tragedy, I hope this event doesn't cause the next officer to hesitate and result in the loss of another 55 lives.

 

[TVRKing]

While it is a tragedy, I hope this event doesn't cause the next officer to hesitate and result in the loss of another 55 lives.

56.

 

[rk]

Something still tells me you've never been to London, and are avoiding the issue.

London isn't full of white, English people you know.

I hadn't realized it was an issue. I was there when I was 15, I stayed for a week, I visited Stonehenge before it was surrounded by chainlink and watched some "Gothic style" people performing some sort of ceremony. I went to Shakespeare's home and observed thatch roofed houses and chose to remain at the bus to talk to the driver who claimed to have flown Spitfire's during the war. While in London I stayed at a university dorm, found a small shop that sold excellent shrimp sandwiches and played foosball between sightseeing. I was mostly consumed with tactile evidence relating to how England had survived the war. Admittedly, I was too young to notice any cultural diversity; although I remember that our quarters in Paris were directly across the street from an asylum. At the end of my stay, we boarded a chartered 747 at Heathrow and returned to America.

The bottom line is, he left a house which was being investigated. He was wearing clothing similar to terrorist bombers (trenchcoat in summer, backpack). Uniformed officers attempted to arrest him. He fled from them and went straight to the tube - the site of 8 bombings/attempted bombings this month. What would you have done on the basis of this information? No-one seems willing to answer this.

I would have had the police detain him before he ever got near the station. Safety of the populace is paramount to garnerment of evidence (which seems to be the only reason they would let him take ten steps from the watched house) in my moral ledger.

Oh, and tasering someone when there's a distinct possibility they're wearing crude explosive devices, triggered by an electrical detonator is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard expressed on this forum.

Far be it that the officers would risk suicide (as serviceman Calipari did for Guiliana Segrena) detonating 10 pounds or less of explosives in the relative safety of the open.
It would appear, on the face of things, that the Italian servicemen are even more socially oriented than the English SAS or MI5 or whatever the heck they were.

 

[smellysocks12]

"Fxxx the police comin' straight from the underground, young nxxxa got it bad cause I'm brown..." Ice Cube

This song line has never been as relevant before as it is in this topic.

 

[Famine]

Are you implying a racial motivation for this incident?

Far be it that the officers would risk suicide (as serviceman Calipari did for Guiliana Segrena) detonating 10 pounds or less of explosives in the relative safety of the open.

Just to check - would that be the open of a bus, the open of a tube train, the open of an underground station or the open of a street, all of which were crowded with early-morning commuters?


You were not there. It is not your place to question the police who carried out their duties to the letter. If they did anything wrong, the subsequent enquiry (as I pointed out earlier, all situations where firearms are discharged require an enquiry) will say so. You, on the other hand, are relying on "eyewitness reports" which conflict - yet you are ignoring the conflict and preferring to believe that police shot some bloke in the head repeatedly because they fancied it.

 

[smellysocks12]

Are you implying a racial motivation for this incident?

Uhhh yeah, that's obvious. If he would have been blonde with blue eyes I doubt they'd have pinpointed him as a potential terrorist. On the other hand I am not saying that the people who shot them were racists. His skin color definitely helped making him look suspicuous though.



Not to mention the cops literally came from the underground.

 

[Famine]

Of course it did.

zOMG! n3gr0!

The policeman pursued him TO the Underground, so that part is wrong too.

 

[Danoff]

I'd rather the police shot one innocent man under the impression he was a terrorist, than let one terrorist go under the impression he's an innocent man - allowing him to nuke a train full of people.

But it isn't one man because it's a problem inherent with terrorism that will likely come up again, he wasn't innocent since he resisted arrest, and it's wrong to sacrifice innocent life to save others.

The bottom line is that they thought he was armed. They thought that he was carying a deadly weapon and he made a move as though to use it. It makes sense for the police to use deadly force in response. I wonder, though, whether he was a suspect for good cause - and if it was necessary to fire upon him after he was grounded.

 

[Famine]

I wonder, though, whether he was a suspect for good cause - and if it was necessary to fire upon him after he was grounded.

He wasn't a suspect at all - there is no information in the public domain to say that HE was being investigated for anything. He merely emerged from a house which was being monitored in connection with the events earlier in the month, dressed similar to the people who carried out the attacks (long coat in summer and a rucksack) and made for public transport. He was to be detained for questioning - since no-one knew who the hell he was - and fled rather than be arrested by uniformed officers.

I take the information that he was shot AFTER he was grounded with a pinch of salt - especially as it comes from the same source as the information that 3/8 uniformed/plain clothers officers/operatives armed with a black automatic pistol/shotguns took an Asian man down.

Armed policemen carry semi-automatic weapons and are uniformed. They are unlikely to be involved in a pursuit, but are used as marksmen. If they shot him it would have been from longer range and not with their men on top of the target. They shoot for the chest (one round) then the head (one round). They can only fire on semi-automatic - not fully automatic. Armed plain clothes "operatives" are not police and carry a specific selection of weapons (a shorter version of the MP5 and a Glock pistol being amongst them), assuming them to be MI5. The SAS, who are unlikely to be involved, but have a 20-man unit on-call in London can carry any weapons they fancy, but shotguns in a crowded environment are unlikely to be used.

Good points about innocence though.

 

[slackbladder]

Eyewitness reports are very unreliable, or they can be. To be honest a lot that has been reported has to be taken with a pinch of salt and until the facts are laid out in full view (which hopefully will be done though it hasn't always happend in the past) we will be the wiser.

PS I just noticed the poll! Err..isn't that a no-brainer?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

This song line has never been as relevant before as it is in this topic.

Errr...right on comrade, I don't think that song has anything to do with terrorism Isn't that song actually about the difference (or what used to the difference) between the way US police treated black and white suspects...ie "black ones are guilty and probably armed so lets start firing" Not so relevant here.

You say skin colour what!?...I'm more tanned, and I live in England

Charles de Menezes

56.

You are quite right...except that four of them don't count as victims...the figure includes these four murderers.

Oh and the man shot running from police was dressed the same as this guy...and he's on the most wanted list as a failed bomber from the day before.

Maybe is was wrong time wrong place, but definitely now is not the time to run on a train with a rucksack

There will be an enquiry, but I doubt if the officers broke any rules.

The details of Operation Kratos have been revealed.
Officers allowed to shoot to kill, not disable
Head shots allowed, as body may trigger bomb
No need for special permission to kill
Target must be seen as imminent threat
Gold officer gives order to fire
5 shots are necessary

Even the officer shooting him 5 times in head was following guidelines.

Edit:

PS I just noticed the poll! Err..isn't that a no-brainer?

Yep, but who voted justified?!
Terrorist views and grievances can be justified, even understood, but not their actions

 

[ledhed]

Attn nitwits and terrorist the following rules are in effect ;

Officers allowed to shoot to kill, not disable
Head shots allowed, as body may trigger bomb
No need for special permission to kill
Target must be seen as imminent threat
Gold officer gives order to fire
5 shots are necessary


and one in the balls from me .

 

[sukerkin]

I wonder if it's likely they would be MI5, Famine.

That's a civilian intelligence branch and is unlikely to have armed personnel tracking people in London (tho' we are in exceptional circumstances at the moment).

If I had to bet, armed, plain clothes, operatives trailing terrorist suspects on home soil speaks of SAS to me.

For a while, during the 'Irish Problem', we had teams of SAS on the ground in Ireland whose sole purpose was the permanent removal of IRA members - it's not widely publicised but it happened. It's thought to be one of the reasons why, at long last, a more negotiated settlement was reached when the IRA leadership realised that the government had had enough and was prepared to do things the 'simple' way.

I empathise with what RK's been saying about our 'allowing' the erosion of civilrights during times of crisis but I do think that to believe that it doesn't happen all the time, world-wide, whatever the political or cultural foundation of the country involved, is a touch naive.

With regard to the matter in hand, that poor Brazilian chap that got himself shot. Whilst I don't think that it's right to say he got what he deserved, I stand by what I said earlier (prior to Mr. Socks erudite rebuttal of my call for a halt on unhelpful speculation) i.e. that if it wasn't part of a terrorist attack then it was monumentally stupid behaviour.

The man was an electrician who'd lived here for three years so I don't think that language would've been a problem, nor, fundamentally, general intelligence, as you need a certain amount of wit to mess around with electricity.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but there is a precident for suicide bombers to be coerced into performing attacks by threats to their family and loved ones. I don't know if it's probable but it could be that he was manipulated in a similar way by the terrorist organisation to undermine confidence in the security forces by having them 'slot' an apparently innocent man.

Sounds like fiction I know but I'm struggling for reasons for him to behave so irrationally - unless of course, he's culturally conditioned to run from police because of the 'Death Squads' in his own country (no, I'm not serious, so please don't be offended).

Anyhow, we'll learn what our govenrment wants us to learn, when they want us to know it I guess. I know that's fatalistic but the tide of history is like that unfortunately.

 

[rk]

You were not there. It is not your place to question the police who carried out their duties to the letter. If they did anything wrong, the subsequent enquiry (as I pointed out earlier, all situations where firearms are discharged require an enquiry) will say so. You, on the other hand, are relying on "eyewitness reports" which conflict - yet you are ignoring the conflict and preferring to believe that police shot some bloke in the head repeatedly because they fancied it.

Thank you for offering to quote my personal beliefs. You are wrong. As you have said, I wasn't there, and you certainly haven't been inside my head. I never accused the police of performing fanciful killings, indeed, it is an extremely high responsibility job that luckily for all, I have the presence of mind to know I could not handle.
Sukerkins surmise that he was coerced into the role is reasonable. While hiking today, I mentated on the series of events. I think it is reasonable to assume de Menezes was a member of the group who frequents the house being observed. As an electrician, he could consider himself to be useful to the cause he believed in. With a little directed coaching, he might have been unaware of the deadly situation he had entered and tried to escape to help strike again in the future. This does not belie the fact that we are a civilized society and generally, except in the case of imminent threat, a man is innocent until proven guilty. The police are not yet authorized to exterminate conspirators.
We are at a pivotal moment in history and must act very carefully if we are to preserve the dignity of the civilization we have built.
Obviously the bombings were not isolated to a few brainwashed kids of Paki descent. The dead Brazillian all but proves it. If you say "kill him first before he strikes," I guarantee you that by the time the lead stops flying, we will be killing people for the most obscure of trespasses, there will be no regulating power to stop it, because we have already given the police authorization to use deadly force based on their sole discretion, and this is just the beginning.
We must examine the motivations and defuse the bombs before they ever get built. It is laughably simplistic to assume there is a evil cabal bent on world anarchy. There may be an evil cabal bent on world domination, and if so, we better get about identifying their tools and means, and seek to disable them. I still believe we should re-evaluate Western world policy.
As the police are the right arm of the law, the bombers could be seen as the arms and legs of the adversaries. Fighting the bombers on their terms will just get a lot of bombers killed, some policemen, and likely many more of you and I, innocent civilians.

I found this by reading the Wikipedia page regarding the 7/7 bombings, dated Nov. 17, 2004:

The plot was aimed at setting off a large bomb at a prestigious economic or political target inside the United Kingdom—in effect to make a political statement against the British government. Among the targets considered in detail by the plotters, sources say, was London’s Heathrow Airport, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6514619/site/newsweek/

*edit: This also from the same article:

According to a U.S. government official, fears of terror attacks have prompted FBI agents based in the U.S. Embassy in London to avoid traveling on London's popular underground railway (or tube) system, which is used daily by millions of commuters. While embassy-based officers of the U.S. Secret Service, Immigration and Customs bureaus and the CIA still are believed to use the underground to go about their business, FBI agents have been known to turn up late to crosstown meetings because they insist on using taxis in London's traffic-choked business center.

and the (possible) reason why the threats we not made (more) public:

The indications that plotters linked to a big election-season terror alert actually were actively planning to attack Britain rather than the United States is at least the second revelation which seems to partly undermine administration assertions that the U.S. homeland faced a heightened risk of attack during the presidential campaign.

The Orange alert "was one of the most crimping factors that took away from whatever bounce from the convention there was," says Rand Beers, Kerry's chief foreign-policy adviser during the campaign and a former top counterterrorism aide in the Bush White House. In an interview this week, Beers also noted that there were legitimate "operational" reasons not to go public with the terror alert when Ridge announced it—namely, so that ongoing investigations into the intelligence about the financial-building surveillance could proceed in Pakistan and Great Britain. In light of that, Beers adds: "There is a plausible case to be made for political gain being the primary motivation" behind the timing of the announcement.

No conspiracy here, huh.

 

[slackbladder]

Interesting piece by the BBC Security correspondant. BBC News
People seem to forget that the rules of engagement have changed. The Police have far different powers and rights to do whatever is needed to catch or kill suspected or known terrorists. If that means armed Police in plain clothes so be it. Normally it would never happen, but these are not normal times.

I have nothing against what the Police did. Far from it, such actions may yet prove to be needed. I do not think their tactics should change either. But it would be nice to know what their modus operandi is now. What exactly is "Operation Kratos"? What does it involve?
I think we should know what the Police and the authorities are doing for our safety, particularly if there is a chance they may shoot an innocent person again, albeit for reasons that are wholly understandable.

One thing I will say, no one should die for being stupid. It was a terrible tragedy with no need to find any more justification than, at that moment, it had to be done. It cannot be justified anymore by saying he was an idiot and somehow deserved it. I find such thinking deeply abhorrent though if that is peoples beliefs than feel free to air it. We are, after all, living in a Democracy under threat from extremists and terrorists.