It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Suicide Bomber Shot At Stockwell Tube Station

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
ah, forget it



[edit on 22-7-2005 by infinite]




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Burgess
Well if i was stupid enough to run away from armed police after they had told me to stop then i suspect i had it coming.


Well, I would have protested for you in such a case even if you thought you deserved it.

From the other range of news reports, it seems that this man wasn't killed for simply running away, which is a relief.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZMax
Shall I understand that the Israeli practice of targeted assassinations is a just one?Or only the british practice is right,and the israeli is wrong?
Maybe we should ask Ken Livingston,Havier Solana and few other folks?


Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this exactly what american police would do to a suspect (terrorist or just a criminal) trying to evade capture?

What the isrealis do ishardly the same thing, the suspects in that case are usually unarmed, in civilian areas and the use of the word targeted is a bit of joke really....you can hardly call firing a missle into a crowded street to kill one man targeted



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Of course not I was just as horrified as the rest of the world was.

Yeah, but did you see it and smell it? I asked where you were that day. I'm not saying that my war story is worse than yours, but just because you've seen a few guns while waiting for your baggage (and not crying) doesn't make you more of an American than me.


I would not be so sure about that many of us fly on a regular basis.


I was hopping flights 4-5 times a month. I hopped two more after 9/11, and "retired" to the Midwest.


I would not be crying where you would and I sure would not vote for someone known to cry first and act later, that was the point I was trying to make.

No.. cast your ballot for someone who sits dumbfounded while reading a children's book. Someone who then gets on his cushie airplane, protected by fighter jets, and takes a few hours to gather himself. Someone who has dozens of people to tell him how to act and what to say. I'm sure G.W. did a bit more than cry once he was at a safe altitude. I'm willing to bet someone had to change his pants.

I'd rather have a president who shows emotions as opposed to one who is incapable of independent thought.

Dot.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodAtum
I know this is obvious but why did they not use a taser on the guy outside Downing Street and the guy today?



If the guy today was wearing a thick jacket as reported, a taser would be ineffective because the prongs have to make contact with the skin to work properly.

Also there is probably a chance that the electrical current could set off a bomb.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Infinite...

Why is it a crazy idea that SAS or other SF units weren't used???

All you have to do is look back to 1988 to Gibralta and there you will see that a plain clothed SAS team killed 3 IRA suspects.

so.....not crazy at all.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by spacemunkey]

[edit on 22-7-2005 by spacemunkey]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommyc

He was not one of the wanted bombers, but was a terrorist suspect.


That is not the way I took it. As I understood the news conference one of them clearly stated they neither could or would confirm that he was involved at this time.

For all any of us couch potatoes knows they may have learned there were more then four suspects from yesterday for reasons they did not care to share at this time.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Thanks for clarifying the taser issue




Police officers are simply not trained in the way this person was killed.


Maybe they were MI5 or MI6 agents with pistols.

Question: If an undercover policeman had a gun and was about to shoot a someone and there were uniformed armed poilcemen nearby would he have to show his ID before he shot the guy because how would the police know he is a policeman?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacemunkey
Infinite...

Why is it a crazy idea that SAS or other SF units weren't used???

All you have to do is look back to 1988 to Gibralta and there you will see that a plain clothed SAS team killed 3 IRA suspects.

so.....not crazy at all.


i know what the SAS does and how it works. But Scotland Yard confirmed it was officers for their special branch,armed department.

SAS are currently searching for Bin Laden along with delta force.

[edit]

Yes, the SAS killed 3 IRA suspects,but the police wanted this guy arrested not dead. SAS gets involved when targets need to be stopped i.e killed.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by infinite]

[edit on 22-7-2005 by infinite]

[edit on 22-7-2005 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Godatum...

Yeah, could be a number of government agencies, definately not your 'bog standard undercover cop' though.

Whoever shot him weren't taking any chances of him detonating anything.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by picard_is_actually_a_grey
I have to agree with shots on this one, unless you lost immediate family or friends in 9/11 or now 7/7 then crying is an over reaction. Im afraid dot if i were that MP i'd of told you to move the hell on and stop the melodrama.


It's so easy for those of you who watched 9/11 and 7/7 on TV as opposed to those who were actually there. You don't know how good you have it. So those of us in metro DC, London, and New York who cried in the immediate aftermath are a bunch of sissies?

I'd gladly pay to be in your shoes.

Dot.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
From the other range of news reports, it seems that this man wasn't killed for simply running away, which is a relief.

Althoguh they may not be giving particulars, I believe they were following the guy because they hoped he would maybe be a source of important information. Leading them to safehouses or his associates. That would explain why they let him get as far as he did, and also why they believed lethal force was necessary when he did the unexpected.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo

Originally posted by ZMax
Shall I understand that the Israeli practice of targeted assassinations is a just one?Or only the british practice is right,and the israeli is wrong?
Maybe we should ask Ken Livingston,Havier Solana and few other folks?


Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this exactly what american police would do to a suspect (terrorist or just a criminal) trying to evade capture?

What the isrealis do ishardly the same thing, the suspects in that case are usually unarmed, in civilian areas and the use of the word targeted is a bit of joke really....you can hardly call firing a missle into a crowded street to kill one man targeted


Well,let me think!
"In civilian areas" is going to the trashcan,because I'm sure the center of London is not a millitary zone
"usually unarmed"...bet you checked it,but even if you are right,think about it...You believe this terrorist is going to blow himself,he's a ticking bomb after all,where you going to shoot him?at the bus stop,or at first possible time...I'll live this one for you
"firing a missile"...maybe you want the israeli army to send 20 tanks into a middle of palestinian city,to search for one terrorist....Oh...I get it now...they must use their new gravity beam weapon...I heard about it...too



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dotgov101
So those of us in metro DC, London, and New York who cried in the immediate aftermath are a bunch of sissies?



You said it.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodAtum

Question: If an undercover policeman had a gun and was about to shoot a someone and there were uniformed armed poilcemen nearby would he have to show his ID before he shot the guy because how would the police know he is a policeman?


I'd imagine that the armed policemen following the plain clothes guys in knew *exactly* who were on their side - the policemen originally at the station would probably not have been armed.

There was an eyewitness report who saw one car pull up and armed officers come out and then another car pulled up. I assume these were back up squads called in.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dotgov101

Originally posted by shots
Of course not I was just as horrified as the rest of the world was.

Yeah, but did you see it and smell it? I asked where you were that day. I'm not saying that my war story is worse than yours, but just because you've seen a few guns while waiting for your baggage (and not crying) doesn't make you more of an American than me.


I was not in DC but I was in NYC within eyesight of the towers and had dust all over me, so don't think what you saw was worse, you have no idea how horrible it was to see the towers collapse.



I was hopping flights 4-5 times a month. I hopped two more after 9/11, and "retired" to the Midwest.



Big deal I had to rent a car and drive back home after 911 with that I will let this exchange end it is going OT and we do not want that. If you can and want start a thread with the title "What we cry babies thought the day of 911" and I will be happy to join in


[edit on 7/22/2005 by shots]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   


Question: If an undercover policeman had a gun and was about to shoot a someone and there were uniformed armed poilcemen nearby would he have to show his ID before he shot the guy because how would the police know he is a policeman?


If police just appeared how would they react? Lets say that the armed guy had secured the suspect by pointing a gun at him and he knows there are no bombs. Would the police secure the suspect first and then check the guy's ID.

Just being picky. I like to know how these thing work



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I was not in DC but I was in NYC within eyesight of the towers and had dust all over me, so don't think what you saw was worse, you have no idea how horrible it was to see the towers collapse.


I was the first one to say that I didn't wish to share wounds, so to speak. But by stating that the fact I am female makes me less logical and more emotional is a biased statement. Go to a Yahoo group if you wish to say such things.


I will let this exchange end it is going OT and we do not want that. If you can and want start a thread with the title "What we cry babies thought the day of 911" and I will be happy to join in


Thank you for being such a man and deciding when it should end. Funny how the OT began with you somehow rambling about females and the Presidency as the people of London are stating what is happening in realtime. There's a Page Up button on your keyboard to help remember what this thread is about.

Dot.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
A pity if he's dead. But it just shows how quickly the net has closed


Why is it a pity..if he is a terrorist, good for the police!



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
BBC have just announced that an arrest has been made in Stockwell - apparently they've been searching some houses there.







 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join