War against terror

[Bernadotte 0]

It is realy hot here in England at the moment in the 30s same as it has been for about a month or more.

Yesterday's high at Heathrow was only 21 and it was much colder a 10 am.  Currently it's 19.

The truth is really taking a beating today.  

[Pathy 0]

@bals Sorry, i missed that, but no need to flame bait over it. You know you COULD have got your point across by just saying, read again, lining your two posts up, and setting me off in the right direction, without all the flame bait.

If youve ever been to England you will know that 21 is hot hot hot in sunny old England.

So go on then, tell us what the truth is then Bernadotte. If you say its taking a beating then you must know the REAL story in order to make that judgement. So go ahead, share it with us.

[Acecombat 0]

Yep i am an asian i can tell you i think anything below 20 is a bit cold for me , we folks are used to hot weather so the slightest amount of cold is like freezing for us.

[Bernadotte 0]

Drawing conlusions at this moment is not rational.

I totally agree. But when you speculated about how the police could act with a mountain of evidence against the guy I couldn't resist offering a little counter-speculation.

[Pathy 0]

Drawing conlusions at this moment is not rational.

I totally agree.  But when you speculated about how the police could act with a mountain of evidence against the guy I couldn't resist offering a little counter-speculation.

Funnily enough i agree too, but i seem to be labelled with thinking this guy is guilty.

As ive said about 5 or 6 times, i do not know if he was innocent or guilty. I havent been speculating any more than you lot by saying that i think the police were justified in thier actions, even if he was innocent. My reasons ive already stated several times.

Ace the thing about the UK is, its so humid. I came back from South America where it'd been 30 or over every day, right next to the ecuator, and found the UK heat insufferable. It was "colder" but whereas South America was mostly dry heat (except for in jungles), the UK was so humid the air felt like it was choking you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4709571.stm

Suspected bus bomber arrested. See, they dont shoot them all.  

Also worth noting i am not a fan of the wearenotafraid site

[Balschoiw 0]

Sorry Pathy, but I already pointed you back on my posts back on the last page....

I expect that people taking part in a discussion do read what the persons participating in a discussion contribute and if you are not sure scroll back to see what the person has written before, to make sure that you are right about your memory or not.

It´s not flamebaiting.

It´s just a matter of attention to a discussion.

[Pathy 0]

I consider comments like "If that bursts your limit of reality understanding you need learn that." a flame bait.

I was tempted to flame you for it, i didnt, but the bait was there IMO.  

I just misread it thats all, i did read your post through but obviously my reality understanding isnt good enough for your superior intellect.    

Ok i'm out, you all know where i stand, no point in debating it anymore, unless someone has a specific post for me The rest is too intellectual and outside my limit of understanding.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]i did read your post through but obviously my reality understanding isnt good enough for your superior intellect.

Looks like.

You were the one who started to get personal if I may remind you. Nethertheless I redirected you 2 times to read the posts.

If you can´t remember what someone has written, check it before making accusations of any kind.

I don´t really care if you assume something as flamebaiting or not, as it is none. You would certainly not get funky if we put words into your mouth, no ?

Anyway, I´m not interested in that personal shit. I post here for clarity reasons and to sum up what we know right now. I´m not interested in personal ramblings.

Quote[/b] ]Suspected bus bomber arrested. See, they dont shoot them all.

Just checked the link. Where does it say he´s the suspected bus bomber ?

Quote[/b] ]A second man has been arrested in connection with Thursday's attempted bombings in London, police said.

The man was held in Stockwell, south London, under anti-terror laws late on Friday night, police said.

I don´t know where you get your info from, but the info on the link only says they arrested another suspect, with no detail of his role in the whole deal.

Remember, they arrested a guy in Egypt last week who was accused of having ties to the bombers but he had none at all.

Pathy, you really need to be more accurate.

[Acecombat 0]

A forum regular robbo @ opflash.org posted this i found it an interesting read so posting it here as well.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1418817.htm

Broadcast: 20/07/2005

US 'misread motivation' of suicide bombers

Reporter: Kerry O'Brien

Quote[/b] ]KERRY O'BRIEN: Not everyone accepts the stereotype of suicide bombers recruited by the Al Qaeda network, as religiously-inspired haters of Western values, intent of destroying Western civilisation. One American analyst has conducted a comprehensive study of every act of suicide terrorism over the past 25 years to understand what drives suicide bombers and why suicide terrorism is on the rise around the world. He says it's too simplistic to assume Islamic fundamentalism in the central cause.

Associate Professor Richard Pape, from the University of Chicago, has produced a book on that study called Dying to Win - The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. And he says America has misread the primary motivation of suicide bombers. I spoke with Robert Pape earlier today.

Robert Pape, after all of your studies, all of your trawling over hundreds of cases of suicide terrorism over decades, how did you react to the London bombings?

ROBERT PAPE, SUICIDE TERRORISM EXPERT: The London attacks were part of Al Qaeda's strategic logic, which they have been pursuing with increasing vigour since 9/11. Since 2002 Al Qaeda has carried out over 15 suicide and other terrorist attacks killing nearly 700 people, more than all of the years before 9/11 combined. Although many have hoped that our counter-terrorism efforts would have weakened Al Qaeda by the measure that counts the ability of the group to kill us, Al Qaeda is stronger today than before 9/11.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You say America and its allies continue to make fundamental errors in the way they read the strategic logic behind Al-Qaeda and associated terrorists. In what way?

ROBERT PAPE: There's a faulty premise in the current strategy on the war on terrorism. That faulty premise is that suicide terrorism and Al Qaeda suicide terrorism in particular is mainly driven by an evil ideology Islamic fundamentalism independent of other circumstances. However, the facts are that since 1980, suicide terrorist attacks from around the world over half have been secular. What over 95 per cent of suicide attacks around the world [are about] is not religion, but a specific strategic purpose - to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly and this is in fact a centrepiece of Al Qaeda's strategic logic, which is to compel the United States and Western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian Peninsula.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You say that September 11, Bali, Madrid and now the London bombings are not part of an Islamic fundamentalist attack on Western civilisation, Western decadence, yet the kind of hate literature that comes from Islamic extremists say exactly that, an attack on Western civilisation, Western democracy.

ROBERT PAPE: We have strong evidence to the contrary. The British Home Office just released a four-volume report that they conducted in 2004 - and you can find it on the London Times web site - that four-volume report is about attitudes in the British Muslim community.

There are 1.6 million Muslims in Britain. The Home Office found that 13 per cent of those Muslims believed that suicide attacks against the West were justified. They further found that the central reason for why those 13 per cent believed those suicide attacks were justified was anger over British military policies on the Arabian Peninsula. The link between anger over American, British and Western military forces stationed on the Arabian Peninsula and Al Qaeda's ability to recruit suicide terrorists to kill us couldn't be tighter.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So how should America have responded to the September 11 attacks?

ROBERT PAPE: Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do. After all, it's crucial to deny terrorists a sanctuary where they can plan and train for terrorist operations against us. Unfortunately, all of the gains we made against Al Qaeda by going into Afghanistan were lost and we lost even more when we went in to Iraq.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So how do you explain the strategic logic of the insurgents in Iraq attacking Iraqis as well as Americans?

ROBERT PAPE: Al-Zarqawi himself has explained this strategic logic in his famous letter to Osama bin Laden in January 2004. In that letter he said that he intended to focus suicide attacks on security organs of the Iraqi Government and Western agents in Iraq, which in fact he has done in the last two years, and he said he was doing that because they were the eyes, ears and hands of the American occupier.

KERRY O'BRIEN: When you look at the motivation of Osama bin Laden and other extreme fundamentalists, isn't it their ultimate goal to establish their particular brand of fundamentalism right through the Middle East?

ROBERT PAPE: There's no question that Osama bin Laden himself appears to have goals beyond simply ejecting Western combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula. The real question is whether he would be able to use suicide attack to achieve those goals. We've seen in the case of Lebanon that other suicide terrorist groups, also with such goals, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, which also had the goal to create an Islamic state, and also used suicide terrorist attack to eject foreign combat forces from its territory. What we've seen is once those combat forces left, the terrorist group was not able to continue a suicide terrorist campaign. Once American forces left Lebanon, Hezbollah attackers did not follow us to New York. Once Israeli forces left Lebanon, Hezbollah suicide attackers did not follow Israel into Tel Aviv. Instead, what's happened over time is, Hezbollah has abandoned suicide attack and virtually abandoned terrorism itself and become, since the early 1990s, more or less a mainstream political party. It still has its goal of trying to pursue an Islamic fundamentalist state but it's not using suicide attack or really violence at all to achieve that end.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So what scope is there for growth in the recruitment of potential suicide terrorists and who are these people being recruited anyway?

ROBERT PAPE: Suicide terrorists are not mainly depressed, lonely individuals on the margins of society. I've studied 462 suicide terrorists from around the world since 1980. Few fit the standard stereotype of a depressed, lonely individual on the margins of society. Half of those 462 are secular and therefore not religious fanatics.

In fact, most suicide terrorists are socially integrated, productive members of their community like the London bombers. Most suicide terrorists, and this is true including those in Lebanon and Palestine, are working-class and middle-class like the London bombers. Most suicide terrorists are walk-in volunteers who are not long-time members of the terrorist organisation and, therefore, easy for intelligence services to track for years. Most suicide terrorists join the suicide terrorist group just a few months or even just a few weeks in order to do their very first act of violence - their own suicide terrorist attack.

For most suicide terrorists, they don't have evidence as the London bombers don't, that they hate Western values or that they hate being immersed in Western society. What we have evidence for time and again across the spectrum is that they are deeply angered by military policies, especially foreign combat troops on territory that they prize and that they believe they have no other means to change those policies.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Robert Pape, thanks for talking with us.

ROBERT PAPE: Thank you for having me.

Source : The age

Quote[/b] ]Why the bombers are so angry at us

By Robert Pape

July 23, 2005

Most suicide bombers are driven by resistance to occupation, not Islam.

This month's London terrorist attacks are part of al-Qaeda's strategic logic, which has been pursued with increasing vigour in the past three years. Since 2002, al-Qaeda has carried out 17 suicide and other terrorist bombings that have killed nearly 700 people - more attacks and victims than in all the years before 9/11 combined.

Although many people have hoped that Western counter-terrorism efforts would have weakened al-Qaeda, by the measure that counts - the ability of the group to kill us - al-Qaeda is stronger today than before 2001.

The war on terrorism is heading south. The key reason is that the West's strategy for this war is fundamentally flawed. It presumes that suicide terrorism is mainly a product of an evil ideology called "Islamic fundamentalism" and that this ideology would produce campaigns of suicide terrorism wherever it exists and regardless of our military policies. This presumption is wrong, and is leading towards foreign policies that are making our situation worse.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

I have studied every suicide terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. More than half of all suicide attacks were carried out by secular groups and individuals. In fact, the world's leader in suicide terrorism was the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist group that is completely secular and that recruits from Hindus. More than a third of all suicide attacks by Muslims were also carried out by secular groups, such as the Kurdish PKK in Turkey and the Communist Party in Lebanon.

What more than 95 per cent of all suicide terrorist attacks around the world have in common is not religion, but a specific political goal to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, the central objective of every suicide terrorist campaign since 1980 has been to compel a democratic state with military forces on territory that the terrorists prize to take those forces out.

Although terrorist leaders may harbour other goals, history shows that the presence of foreign combat forces is the principal recruiting tool used by terrorist leaders to mobilise suicide terrorists to kill us.

In the early 1990s, the US abandoned its traditional policy in the Persian Gulf and shifted to the sustained presence of tens of thousands of combat forces, thousands of tanks, and hundreds of fighters on the Arabian Peninsula. Since then, Osama bin Laden has given numerous speeches to mobilise terrorists against the US. Many are entitled "The American occupation of the Arabian Peninsula", and typically begin with pages of detailed description of American and Western combat operations on this land.

From 1995 to 2004, there were a total of 71 al-Qaeda suicide terrorists - that is, 71 individuals who actually killed themselves to carry out al-Qaeda's attacks. More than two-thirds were nationals from Sunni Muslim countries where the US has stationed combat troops since 1990: Saudi Arabia, other states on the Arabian Peninsula, Turkey, and Afghanistan. Even the one-third of al-Qaeda suicide attackers that are more transnational in nature are powerfully motivated by anger over Western combat operations on the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, the al-Qaeda group that claimed responsibility for the London attacks said they were to punish Britain for British military operations in Iraq.

The British Home Office conducted a detailed survey of the attitudes of the 1.6 million Muslims living in Britain in April 2004, and found that, while 85 per cent condemned suicide terrorism, 13 per cent believed that more suicide attacks against the US and the West were justified. The survey went further to identify the specific reason: Iraq.

In other words, the principal factor driving support for suicide terrorism among British Muslims was not an evil ideology, but deep anger over British military policies on the Arabian Peninsula.

As we now know, the Bali bombings in October 2002 were an al-Qaeda suicide operation. Months before the Bali attack, a mid-level al-Qaeda leader met Indonesian terrorist groups to ask them to recruit local Indonesians for suicide attacks to punish Australia for sending combat troops to Afghanistan and to deter Australian forces from going to Iraq. The al-Qaeda operative selected the nightclubs for attack and paid $US20,000 ($A26,100) for the mission, while Indonesians angry at Australia's military operations in East Timor carried it out.

Since the London bombings, many are asking how local, middle-class, educated British Muslims could kill themselves to kill others. Alas, the answer is both simple and disturbing: deep anger at Western combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.

As long as the war on terrorism ignores the actual strategic logic of suicide terrorism, it will be impossible to win and our actions may well end up helping terrorist leaders recruit many more suicide terrorists to kill us.

Robert Pape is professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

[walker 0]

Hi all

According to a BBC report and pictures of one of the bombs that failed to go off; the actual trigger used in the failed bombs was: a blasting cap, a little 9v battery, the timer was simply the suicide bomber looking at their watch and initiation was achieved by wires connected by hand. Simple crude and as 7/7 showed effective.

So those last four attempts were failed suicide bombers.

Indications are the explosives were made in the same batch and infact in the same bath in Leeds as the 7/7 bombs. The method of initiating them were probably the same as no other more complex parts of a trigger mechanism has been found in the forensic examination of 7/7.

The reason the bombs did not go off in the second set of suicide bombings is that they were made at the same time as the original explosives in the 7/7 bomb but two weeks has passed and in that time the home made explosive acetone peroxide has degraded significantly.

As to the shot man

As was stated by Scotland yard the man was observed leaving a house placed under observation as a result of investigations from this weeks bombs, latest reports say it was a house pointed out as a result of the photographs of the bombers. An attempt was made to follow him by a team of arround 20 plain clothes officers

20 is about the number needed for box tactics where the person is followed and surrouded as far as nearby parallel streets with teams being in front and behind the person followed. There would be a mixture of teams on foot and in vehicles and with CCTV support and a command and control van. It would probably have even included clothes change vans for the rotating teams.

Before he got near the tube station his actions and clothing made the officers suspicious of his intentions. There would have been a decision made to try to stop him at a point where a potential bomb could do the least dammage I susspect his course toward the tube may have pushed the decision.

Scotland yard has stated they then warned him and attempted to arrest him. The person ran into the tube station pursued by the under cover officers, witness statements say he was chased into the station by about twenty officers.

Witnesses state the person vaulted the ticket barrier, so he was not simply there to travel.

I would guess some of the 20 officers would seal off the station as that is SOP and as by the time he reached the platform he was pursued by 4 or 5 plain clothes officers.

A witness says the man grabed a passenger on the train.

As was stated by Scotland Yard and witnesses the man was wearing a bulky winter jacket in the middle of summer. One witness on the train says the bulky jacket and useasonal jacket hid an explosive belt and reports seeing wires from a suicide belt.

The Explosives used in the recent bombings and attempted bombings are of a type that can be set off by a bullet hence the instructions are to shoot potential suicide bombers in the head rather than the normal body shot.

UK police issue rounds are low velocity so as not risk rounds going through the intended target to hit innocent bystanders, hence the quiet sounding shots, rather than the sharp crack of a high velocity round. It also explains why the person was shot between 3 and 6 times (I personaly think some of the rounds heard may have been echoes this being the tube)

It may well be the man had already tried or was trying to explode a bomb when he grabbed the train passenger.

All in all we have to await the normal Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation before jumping to conclusions.

Kind regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Scotland Yard has just issued an apology and regrets the shooting of the man, saying he was not connected to the recent bombings.

[denoir 0]

Drawing conlusions at this moment is not rational.

I totally agree.  But when you speculated about how the police could act with a mountain of evidence against the guy I couldn't resist offering a little counter-speculation.

Funnily enough i agree too, but i seem to be labelled with thinking this guy is guilty.

As ive said about 5 or 6 times, i do not know if he was innocent or guilty. I havent been speculating any more than you lot by saying that i think the police were justified in thier actions, even if he was innocent. My reasons ive already stated several times.

Innocent or guilty to what? Are you sure that terrorism is the only crime that makes people run from the police? Should we be shooting shoplifters at sight? Should it be punishable by death to run away from the police?

Yes, given what has been happening, it's understandable that the police are a bit on edge, but that's not really an excuse. One should in a time of crisis, more than ever expect them to behave professionally.

Anyway:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

Quote[/b] ]

Shot man 'unconnected' to bombing

A man shot dead by police as part of the inquiry into Thursday's attempted bomb attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police. The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.

Two other men have been arrested and are being questioned after bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus.

So it would seem that he was innocent to terrorism at least.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Firstly, there is no national identity card in the UK (although the government would like to change that *gnashing of teeth*), so the 'illegal immigrant' idea is largely out of the window, because as such he would have no reason to run from the police (unlike in Germany i might add where a certain amount of racial profiling by police seems to go on in requesting official ID, at least according to what ive heard).

I agree to an extent with Balschoiws first post on the matter of this shooting. Until more of the facts are known it is absurd to make definitive statements. People do not know whether explosives were present on the man or not or what intelligence or orders the police had, yet they are willing to say 'the police did the right thing', or 'the police had no reason to shoot him, they could have arrested him'. Its bullshit. You dont know.

Ozanzac-

Quote[/b] ]Does not that contradict the basics of law, innocent until proven otherwise?

If someone appears to be posing an imminent threat to public safety then police dont wait for a violent crime to be committed. The question is whether they had evidence or good reason to think the guy was an immediate threat to the public, and on that we dont know for sure yet. There will be an inquiry though, there always is.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]I think it's sad how quickly people abandon their principles when scared. It makes you think about the stability of modern society. Scare the people a bit and they'll fully support Guantanamo bays and "shoot first, ask questions later" police work.

Im not sure that being scared has so much to do with it. If there are suicide bombers willing to attack the transport system in the UK then having a quiet word with them is unlikely to provide a deterrent, a solution, or prevent them detonating bombs. I dont live in London, i have no real reason to be scared at all, but i can see that a shoot to kill policy may be the only immediate way to prevent an incoming suicide bomber from endangering the public (whom the police are dutybound to protect from said danger). Having said that we dont know what either the man or the police were doing exactly or what they knew (or thought they knew).

Quote[/b] ]I'm not quite sure where people get that misplaced loyalty to the police anyway. They've failed to capture the suspects so far, and they certainly failed to prevent a second attack. It was just dumb luck that no people were killed the second time.

Jesus Denoir, 2 days have passed without them being caught and you're willing to cite that as a reason Britons should feel disloyal to the police (i presume you accept they cant arrest the already exploded bombers)? Im not really sure what the police could have done so far that they havent in this

investigation. Maybe publicly condemn Islam as irrational?

Personally I dont feel particularly 'loyal' nor 'disloyal' to the police. As far as im concerned they are there to serve us and where they succeed they can praised and where they fail they can be condemned. So far i cant see what they could have done overall that they havent.

(Im sure they would appreciate any helpful hints people on this board have to give them ).

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Me-

Quote[/b] ]Personally I dont feel particularly 'loyal' nor 'disloyal' to the police. As far as im concerned they are there to serve us and where they succeed they can praised and where they fail they can be condemned.

Now we have it. Id already heard the guy didnt have explosives so i was wondering what statement we would hear and now we know that someone fucked up. It is still not clear if the person who pulled the trigger had reasonable cause to think the guy was a suicide bomber(clearly this person was suspected having been followed to the station). As i see it the shooter was either working with faulty intelligence, made a bad judgement or totally overreacted and fucked up.

Whatever the case the police certainly failed to 'serve' the guy they shot (although it still seems strange to me that he ran onto the train).

Quote[/b] ]One should in a time of crisis, more than ever expect them to behave professionally.

Obviously, and this was a fuck up. Sometimes behaving professionally does mean pulling the trigger though. Its certainly a hard decision to make when the police have 8 examples of people getting through (50 % mass murder rate).

Meanwhile, 88 people are confirmed dead -so far- in the Sharm al Sheihk bombs  

Quote[/b] ]Toll climbs in Egyptian attacks  

The attacks happened at the height of the tourist season

At least 88 people have been killed in bomb attacks in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, hospital staff say.

Some 200 more were injured in the blasts last night. The first, in the Old Market, was followed by two more in Naama Bay, where a hotel was badly hit.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak vowed to continue the "battle with terrorism" as he visited the sites of the attacks, the worst in Egypt's recent history.

Most of the dead are Egyptians, but foreigners are among the victims too.

The blasts come less than a year after 34 people died in an attack further north in the Sinai Peninsula.

Egyptian Interior Minister Habib al-Adli condemned what he called an "ugly act of terrorism" and said police were following leads.

Toll climbs in Egyptian attacks

[denoir 0]

Until more of the facts are known it is absurd to make definitive statements. People do not know whether explosives were present on the man or not or what intelligence or orders the police had, yet they are willing to say 'the police did the right thing', or 'the police had no reason to shoot him, they could have arrested him'. Its bullshit. You dont know.

Even if we at this point hadn't known that the guy in fact had nothing to do with the bombings, there would be plenty of reasons to question the actions. We're not talking about the police arresting the wrong person, we're talking about a guy lying on the ground, shot five times. This should ring some serious alarm bells. He wasn't shot while running away, he was shot lying on the ground.

And what is the reasoning behind the apologist position? That surely the police would only shoot if they had very good reasons - i.e that the reason for such excessive force must surely have been that the guy was a terrorist.

Now, I do not the whole story. I'm not saying that the police didn't have any reason at all to shoot him - just that there is absolutely no reason why you should blindly trust the police, especially in a situation that in the normal case would morally disgust you. A guy lying on the ground was shot five times.

The apologists in this case are no different from the Guantanamo bay apologists. And it is utterly hypocritical to condemn one of those and fully support the other. We don't know how many people at Gitmo are in fact terrorists. For all we know, they could all be terrorists - as the US government more or less insists. Yet we can condemn it on the grounds that locking people up without trial or legal hearings is fundamentally wrong. The same way we can say that putting five bullets in a guy lying on the ground is fundamentally wrong.

Due to the nature of the action, the primary position should be a sceptical one. It is up to the US government to convince us that giving those people a legal representation is a bad idea. It is up to the metropolitan police to convince us why putting five bullets into a guy lying on the ground was the right thing to do.

The actions by themselves, without context are morally wrong, and that should be the neutral position.

Quote[/b] ]Jesus Denoir, 2 days have passed without them being caught and you're willing to cite that as a reason Britons should feel disloyal to the police (i presume you accept they cant arrest the already exploded bombers)? Im not really sure what the police could have done so far that they havent in this investigation.

No, I am not saying that you should feel disloyal, just that you have no reason at all to feel loyal to to them. But I guess in a time of crisis people always rally around any form of authority. The terrorists are the bad guys and the police are the good guys that try to stop the terrorists. Simple as that, right?

I would say, very much wrong. It is especially in a time of crisis that you have to scrutinize authority, to see that the whole thing doesn't go overboard. When people are scared, they'll accept basically anything that they think might reduce their fear. Even if this introduces far more profound changes than a terrorist attack can do by itself. Take a good long look at post WTC attack America. You really don't want to end up like that.

[Bordoy 0]

The man was a danger to all civillians around him. The police ordered him to stop but dis-obeyd, therefore the police thought there was sufficient amount of danger to the civillians to had to resort to lethal force.

"The man who makes no mistakes, doesn't usually make anything"

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]He wasn't shot while running away

Nope. Because that would put everyone aroun him in danger. The action rtaken was proffesional and well-thougth.

Denoir You have to understand one thing - if You ran into subway and shouted "I have a bomb, I'm gonna kill You" then it doesnt change ANYTHING whether that is true or not. The apparent threat is the same and the reaction is the same.

A wounded or brought to the ground terrorer is still a great danger - as that might even encourage him to blow himself up, right?

The guys that shoot the poor man (maybe mentally ill, drug dealer or a suicider? Who knows?) reacted properly. AT units around the world dont' joke around when in action.

Remember the old SAS abassy action? They went in and shot everyone who looked suspicious without giving any chance to surrenber (or blow themselves up, right?). And by the way the officers brought him down before shooting shows that they weren't police.

And anyway the officers won't be accused to no sh***. They were issued the instructions and will not be now punnished for anything. They had instructions to shoot to kill and they did.

[philcommando 0]

To posts by acecombat with reports on cause of terrorism.

In a nutshell, those reports claim terrorism is caused by the imposition of foriegn troops on soveriegn soil and are secular in nature.

I would have laugh over such idiocies ( scholars are not the ultimate intelligence in any land for views and opinions can be twisted to benefit some in the name of superiority, selfishness and biaseness in all forms) if not for the tragedy of thousands innocent civilians killed. Would any nation or nations launch a war if their own citizens through their elected representatives felt  threatened?

I will agree that terrorist acts are secular in motive by a group of men suffering from delusions of granduer, BUT the nature of it is spiritual as this is the manner whereby men can be used and abused at will. Who better than to lay the blame on an unseen almighty for murders as a way to wash one's blood shed hands and claim that the almighty spoke through them?

The middle east conflict started as early as the 1920s when the British and French sought to end the Ottoman empire. With the degenerate Turks kicked out, both Jews and arabs living there for centuries had the right to land ownership. The Jews had always been docile as lambs after Rome put out their rebellious fire at Massada, preferring a life of worship and contemplation and simple common sense in finace management. The arabs however were mainly bedouins and had never enjoyed city life. The harshness of the deserts accounted for their mentality - only the strong survive. Strong they were, and even provided the military arm for their religion's prophet. With these little bit of glory, they made a mountain of these minor accomplishment, for they were nothing more than soldiers. And throughout history of mankind, we know what happens when the military rule instead of civilians.

As usual, there will be many interpretations and spin on the the events in 1920s on the evolution of the terrorist spark. Nothing good will ever be discussed here as religion coupled with misinformed minds either supporting or whitewashing the criminal behaviour of the clerics then are acting only as apologists for a group of deluded but intelligent men who used religion effectively as a means to usurp power and control a region rich in oil resources. Whoever controls the oil tap controls and influences the world. All the rest of us must bow and scrape before such illuminous criminals, who will stop at nothing to make us kneel as shown in recent events.

As much as i dont want to take sides, the facts on the arab behaviour since the end of the Ottoman empire in the 1920s cannot be whitewashed away. Today, while i grieve over the British dead, i cannot help but shed a tear too for those Jews in the 1920s till today, defenceless and slaughtered in droves in fanatic senseless religious fervour when all they seek was only a small parcel of land which they owned and had to buy it again from the arabs to call their own as is their right too, along with everyone who lives in the middle east to call their own home, be they Jews,palestinians, arabs or bedoiuns.

What most will detests and unable to come to terms are the blood shed, for it will come a time when even docile lambs will bite when slaughtered, as the arabs fanatics found out in the 6 day war. What's worse is to hide behind religion and use it to gain sympathy and credence to killing innocent civilians.

Is this what the criminals want the rest of the world to do too, - to get out of Earth, our home planet?

Must i continue to be blind and withhold my comments least i be seen to be taking sides and belittling nut case imans when the facts are so darn clear and recorded for all to see, and allow the criminal village idiot of the mullahs freedom when they  sought to deny such freedom to others?

Must i deny the rights of existence to the secular Jews and join in the chants even still on today "Death to the Jews! Death to the West! Death to infidels!" just because we in the West are taught to respect all religions, and whatever a priest/mullah speaks is the uncontestable word from the almighty, when they also sought to victimise me and my family and friends all over the world too?

Must i, who have done them no wrong, wait till they kill me before i act?

[Bernadotte 0]

It's a pity that the guy who got shot was not a white non-Muslim. Al Qaida will probably get a great deal of recruitment mileage out of the mistaken killing of an Asian Muslim.

[denoir 0]

@ July 23 2005,20:03)]Denoir You have to understand one thing - if You ran into subway and shouted "I have a bomb, I'm gonna kill You" then it doesnt change ANYTHING whether that is true or not. The apparent threat is the same and the reaction is the same.

Yeah, except for he didn't shout "I have a bomb". He didn't shout anything - he just ran from the police.

Quote[/b] ]A wounded or brought to the ground terrorer is still a great danger - as that might even encourage him to blow himself up, right?

Sure, but do you think that everybody that runs from the police is a suicide bomber?

Quote[/b] ]The guys that shoot the poor man (maybe mentally ill, drug dealer or a suicider? Who knows?) reacted properly.

So you do think that people that run from the police deserve the death penalty, without trial? That running away from the police means that the police has a right to kill you?

Or do you think it's an exception right now due to the bombings? In that case, how long do you think the police should have the right to kill people who run?

Quote[/b] ]And by the way the officers brought him down before shooting shows that they weren't police.

While the identity of the shooter(s) hasn't been published, the metropolitan police seems to have taken the responsibility, so it's quite likely it was a special police force.

Speaking of that, doesn't the UK have some form of posse comitatus law (i.e that forbids military involvement into law enforcement)? Most countries have such laws, but I'm not sure about the UK.

Quote[/b] ]And anyway the officers won't be accused to no sh***.

BBC speculated that manslaughter or depraved indifference charges could be brought up against the officers involved. I guess we'll see after the inquiry. I'm pretty sure that there will be consequences - you can't just gun down innocent people without taking any responsibility.

Bordoy:

Quote[/b] ]

The police ordered him to stop but dis-obeyd, therefore the police thought there was sufficient amount of danger to the civillians to had to resort to lethal force.

I'll put the same question to you: do you think that people who disobey the police and run from the police should be shot on sight?

[Bernadotte 0]

Are you sure that terrorism is the only crime that makes people run from the police?

So, has it been positively established now that he knew he was being chased by police?

Given the current mood in London right now, if I were an Asian male and I suspected I was being followed my a group of men I wouldn't hesitate to sprint into the nearest transit station.  And if those men started running too then I'd probably feel threatened enough to vault the ticket machines.

Has the possibility of such a scenario been eliminated yet?

Btw, even if one of my plane clothed pursuers did say "stop police" I might think twice about stopping to check his badge if I have prior experience being chased by thugs.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'll put the same question to you: do you think that people who disobey the police and run from the police should be shot on sight?

No, but when they have a large amount of suspicion that he is a suicide bomber then lethal force should be allowed aslong as all types of less then lethal have been exhausted.

If someone stole items from a shop and police were chasing him/her, then ofcourse no shots should be fired, unless he/she pulls out a gun and theirs an immediate danger to civillians in the area.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Bordoy-

Quote[/b] ]The man was a danger to all civillians around him.

He wasnt. It seems pretty clear that he was not a suicide bomber and posed no immediate danger to the public when he was shot.

Bernadotte-

Quote[/b] ]It's a pity that the guy who got shot was not a white non-Muslim.  Al Qaida will probably get a great deal of recruitment mileage out of the mistaken killing of an Asian Muslim.

Um. Dont you mean 'its a pity the guy was shot'?

Anyway theres been some speculation that he was south american but at least as far as i know it has not been confirmed that he was muslim. Do you have a link for that?

Bernadotte-

Quote[/b] ]Given the current mood in London right now, if I were an Asian male and I suspected I was being followed my a group of men I wouldn't hesitate to sprint into the nearest transit station.

As i understand it he walked into the train station after which he started running, possibly after being challenged and jumped over the ticket gate and into a train. I dont know Stockwell but there are usually transport workers around the ticket machines, transport police and such people who he probably ran straight past, though if he saw a gun that would change the situation. BTW whatever the 'mood in London' it certainly doesnt include allowing Asian people to be beaten up in public.

Quote[/b] ]Has the possibility of such a scenario been eliminated yet?

There were reports that there was a mixture of plainclothes/undercover police and uniformed police. If there were uniformed police in the vicinity that would tend to eliminate the scenario from my perspective.

-Just saw this

Quote[/b] ]The man - thought to be Brazilian - died at Stockwell Tube in an incident Scotland Yard described as a "tragedy".

...Brazilian diplomats in London said they had been told by police that the man who was shot dead by police on Friday was a Brazilian.

An earlier Scotland Yard statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

man shot dead not connected to bombing

So he wasnt a British Asian , he was Brazilian. I guess that will upset Al-Quaidas plans?

Who knows for sure what was going through his mind. Pointless to speculate at this point.

But what the hey, maybe he was a drug dealer. Maybe he was running away from drug dealers in brazil. Maybe he was an illegal animal importer, maybe he was a common thief. Maybe his parents were killed by a Brazilian death squad and he thought it was happening to him. Maybe he just got scared because a bunch of people were following him and ran onto a train to get away. Who the heck knows.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

BBC-

Quote[/b] ]The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27.

You can relax Bernadotte, the dead mans name appears reassuringly Christian   .

BBC-

Quote[/b] ]A package was found by a member of the public in bushes in Little Wormwood Scrubs on Saturday morning.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Explosives officers attended the scene. An initial examination suggests that the object may be linked to devices found at four locations in London on July 21."

Police said it would be subject to "detailed forensic analysis".

Police have also raided a house in Streatham Hill, south London, in connection with the failed attacks. The statement confirmed the man had been followed by police from a house in Tulse Hill that was under surveillance.

The guy who was shot was not a bomber. However it appears there may have been another bomb (and fifth bomber presumably?), it seems strange that it was dumped in the park unless it was part of an aborted bombing attempt.

The aftermath of the shooting-

Quote[/b] ]His death is being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

John O'Connor, former commander of the Met Police, told the BBC the consequences of the shooting were likely to be "quite horrendous".

He said he expected officers to face criminal charges, and other officers could even refuse to carry weapons.

But Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said it was too early to judge what the effects would be.

She called for a "prompt, comprehensive and independent investigation".

Shot man not connected to bombing

[Bernadotte 0]

Bernadotte-

Quote[/b] ]It's a pity that the guy who got shot was not a white non-Muslim.  Al Qaida will probably get a great deal of recruitment mileage out of the mistaken killing of an Asian Muslim.

Um. Dont you mean 'its a pity the guy was shot'?

Do you really need me to explain what I meant?

And besides that, obviously it's a pity the guy was shot.

Bernadotte-

Quote[/b] ]Given the current mood in London right now, if I were an Asian male and I suspected I was being followed my a group of men I wouldn't hesitate to sprint into the nearest transit station.

...whatever the 'mood in London' it certainly doesnt include allowing Asian people to be beaten up in public.

Do you really believe that there haven't been any attacks on Asians?

And besides that, obviously Asian people aren't allowed to be beaten up.