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: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
Credible Source.

english.aljazeera.net...

Anyone can contribute to Wiki. It's no Bible.


Er..Are you calling Al'Jazeera a credible source? Personally, I would hold them as one of the more biased sources in this kind of story. I would take what they say about it with as much wieght as I would JTA's count of Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli raids.




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
he was shot 5 times 3 times in the head he is dead. so our goverments have became our judges, jury and excutioners. that is so scary.


Ummmm, what if you or you kids were on this train? Or my kids? No, the police or SAS (I doubt it cause it would have been 5 head shots) took him down to save many more. This is what you pay them to do.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
This is very sad. When will these attacks in london stop. This reminds me of a thread years ago on ATS.


I think it was entitled "Next terrorism attack in the UK" I'll dig it up.



If anyone can find a thread titles something along the lines of "Next terrorist attck in the UK" Or something along the lines of that from all the way back in late 2003 please u2u me with the thread or post it here.



[edit on 7-22-2005 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Er..Are you calling Al'Jazeera a credible source? Personally, I would hold them as one of the more biased sources in this kind of story. I


Al Jazeera is a crediable news organization and if it slants it news its no more different than say Fox. While the political overtones may not be what you or I want to hear, it is always important to consider how other part of the world are getting thier news and what they are saying about it. i do not hesatate to use it as a source when I post up a story.

No doubt, there is an Imam somewhere saying the exact same thing about our "Un biased" media as well.

But the essential elements of the stories are correct that they report.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
he was shot 5 times 3 times in the head he is dead. so our goverments have became our judges, jury and excutioners. that is so scary.


So how would you recommend handling someone whom you have no reason not to believe they're going to blow themselves up, and have no reason not to believe they have explosives strapped around them or in their jacket? You know, like when people wear heavy winter jackets at the end of July, are suspected terrorists about to be arrested, and make a run for a target that has been attacked twice in 15 days. Reason with them? Hope decency takes hold when they're being apprehended and they decide not to kill people suddenly? How, pray tell, do you appease someone who is about to blow themselves up and a bunch of civilians as well because they hate everything every one of those people stand for?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
While the political overtones may not be what you or I want to hear, it is always important to consider how other part of the world are getting thier news and what they are saying about it.


On that we agree, and that's why I read Al'Jazeera, along with JPA. However, on a figure that just about every news agency who's reported it that I've read has a different figure, I have to question them. If given a range of possible civilian casualties, I would expect them to report the high end while Fox or JPA would report the low end.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
So was a bomb found on this guy? He was wearing a long coat, but isn't that something shoplifters do as well? Did he actually have a bomb strapped around his chest, or does everyone just assume he was a bad guy?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Nope, no bomb, but he was about to be arrested for being a terror suspect. Shoplifters usually don't get that high of a profile to have a squadren of cops coming to their house, then following them to arrest them. There was probable cause to believe he had a bomb over believing he had a stolen Barbie.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
"He doesn't get any sympathy from me."



if this guy who was gunned down had a detonator designed to go off IF HE WERE KILLED, it seems to me the logical thing to do [by your own standards] would be to kill all the police officers who were about to kill HIM. the same people's lives would be at stake, after all.....

i don't see how you couldn't agree on principle.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Because while he had the breath of life in his body there is a strong chance he had the capablility to set off the device.
If they nammy pammyed around and 'checked' first then there is a good chance a lot of people would be killed.


That might very well be the case Agent. I'm not saying it's not. It's also the case that when you're shooting a guy you think is strapped with explosives you might do more harm than good. I can see shooting him to take him down if he was running - but it's just weird to kill him when three or so of you are sitting on him. That's all. Like I said, I hope we learn why that was necessary.

[edit on 7-22-2005 by Valhall]


It won't make much difference where they shoot, you won't set off that type of explosives by shooting at it. To trigger the explosion they would have to shoot the detonator - which is highly unlikely. There is a shoot to kill policy with would be suspected suicide bombers, but it isn't the case they are being told to shoot in the head - as is being reported by some of the media.

And the reason they would put 5 bullets into him is because they would be using low velocity guns, because there being used around the public thus trying to avoid anyone else being injured by the firing. It could take 4 or 5 shots to be sure he's dead (which afterall is the objective of the security services and the tactical firearms unit)



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   


And the reason they would put 5 bullets into him is because they would be using low velocity guns, because there being used around the public thus trying to avoid anyone else being injured by the firing. It could take 4 or 5 shots to be sure he's dead (which afterall is the objective of the security services and the tactical firearms unit)

I have to disagree with this, these aren't air guns. Low volocity or not, at point blank range to the head, 1 would be enough, but 5.....
Also i find it highly suspect that he was shot considering a number of eyewitnesses said his hands were held, surely keeping him alive would be a priority to gain valuable information about the other bombers which could ultimately save lives, no?
This stinks whatever angle you look at it.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by picard_is_actually_a_grey



And the reason they would put 5 bullets into him is because they would be using low velocity guns, because there being used around the public thus trying to avoid anyone else being injured by the firing. It could take 4 or 5 shots to be sure he's dead (which afterall is the objective of the security services and the tactical firearms unit)

I have to disagree with this, these aren't air guns. Low volocity or not, at point blank range to the head, 1 would be enough, but 5.....
Also i find it highly suspect that he was shot considering a number of eyewitnesses said his hands were held, surely keeping him alive would be a priority to gain valuable information about the other bombers which could ultimately save lives, no?
This stinks whatever angle you look at it.


I'm well aware there not hand guns, the low velocity comment is actually the comments of an ex SAS member - he's worked the streets of Northern Ireland and was explaining what type of hand gun would be used in this situation.

1 nice clean shot to the head on packed tube train sounds all well and good - in practise i'd imagine it's very different......i doubt he fired 5 shots becuase he felt like it - they do what is necessary and what there training teaches them to do to protect the public, no more no less.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
i meant "i'm well aware there not air guns", not "hand guns".



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Is the witness who saw "20" cops or so descend on the scene in moments for real?

That would seem like the dead guy was being watched. And if so, why in the hell would they let him get underground?

The dead guy was wearing a puffy coat in summer?

What if the guy was rigged to explode if he died?

[edit on 23-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   


What if the guy was rigged to explode if he died?


I fail to see why that would matter. Should the police just allow them to go on their merry little way?

I can see the news conference now....

Officer: We were afraid that he was rigged to blow up if he died, so we allowed him to carry out his mission unhindered.

Press: So what you are saying is that you allowed him to continue even though you could have taken him out in a fairly uncrowded area of the subway station, and as a result he boarded a packed train during rush hour and killed 30 people?

Officer: That is correct, we recently changed policies where if there is even the slightest chance even 1/10 of 1% that we could possibly harm anyone including the suspect we will withdraw. We just wouldn't have been able to live with ourselves if we had accidentally hurt him while trying to stop him. I mean really, what if we accidentally scuffed his shoe during the struggle.

As a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop suspected suicide bombers. If we try to stop them they detonate themselves, if we shoot them to stop them they may be rigged to go off if they die. I guess we just won't worry about it any more.

Press: Makes sense.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
If he was inicent... Uh, dont want to think about it...



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
He was definately not innocent of everything, he evaded arrest and refused to follow police orders.
It's not like they blew him away without warning, they must have given him some chance otherwise he wouldn;t have got as far as he did seeing as they were (apparanly) following him from his house, or a house.


xu

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   
so they released no details about this yet? isnt this interesting, what about his shocked mother and father who would probably say something like we couldnt imagine that he would do something like this etc. you know there was similar news about the previous ones family, there is no detail about this guy besides he was running didnt listen to warnings and then was knocked of and been shot 5 times.

do we know if he had any hearing disability, or any social or perceptive disability, was he autistic, was he paranoid schizophrenic etc, obviously there wasnt any bomb on him, otherwise the police would go crazy bragging about it and it would be all over the news, I mean there would be no doubt about the boy carrying a bomb on himself because it would be very much emphasized, also note that the news is presented as " he is believed to be a would be suicide bomber" not saying he was and he was on a suicide bombing mission. and if you noticed there is not much information released about this and this will be forgotten in a matter of days.

I think that police forces should admit that they were not sure that the man was a suicide bomber and he didnt carry any bombs on him(except one witness testimony everything points to this), but also they should add that they shot him 5 times from close proximity just in case.

also I strongly believe that if the cops had a more sharp and fast logic at that condition they could take the man alive, since more than one officers were on top of him.

if this is a mistake then they should admit it is (these kind of things happen). and if the cops could force an unnatural act of bravery they could take him alive, there was one suicide bomb attempts here in a mason lodge, and one of the waiters noticed the guy who has just entered to the place was a suicide bomber and he grasped him and knocked him onto the ground while firmly grasping him with his whole body on top, and the bomber triggered the bomb, because of this unnatural act of bravery of the waiter the damage yield of the bomb was remarkably lessened in closed space. well if there was 3 cops instead of that waiter in such a condition they could probably broke his neck by then or any other method for later being revived in a hospital etc.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by xu]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xu
so they released no details about this yet? isnt this interesting, what about his shocked mother and father who would probably say something like we couldnt imagine that he would do something like this etc. you know there was similar news about the previous ones family, there is no detail about this guy besides he was running didnt listen to warnings and then was knocked of and been shot 5 times.

do we know if he had any hearing disability, or any social or perceptive disability, was he autistic, was he paranoid schizophrenic etc, obviously there wasnt any bomb on him, otherwise the police would go crazy bragging about it and it would be all over the news, I mean there would be no doubt about the boy carrying a bomb on himself because it would be very much emphasized, also note that the news is presented as " he is believed to be a would be suicide bomber" not saying he was and he was on a suicide bombing mission. and if you noticed there is not much information released about this and this will be forgotten in a matter of days.

I think that police forces should admit that they were not sure that the man was a suicide bomber and he didnt carry any bombs on him(except one witness testimony everything points to this), but also they should add that they shot him 5 times from close proximity just in case.

also I strongly believe that if the cops had a more sharp and fast logic at that condition they could take the man alive, since more than one officers were on top of him.

if this is a mistake then they should admit it is (these kind of things happen). and if the cops could force an unnatural act of bravery they could take him alive, there was one suicide bomb attempts here in a mason lodge, and one of the waiters noticed the guy who has just entered to the place was a suicide bomber and he grasped him and knocked him onto the ground while firmly grasping him with his whole body on top, and the bomber triggered the bomb, because of this unnatural act of bravery of the waiter the damage yield of the bomb was remarkably lessened in closed space. well if there was 3 cops instead of that waiter in such a condition they could probably broke his neck by then or any other method for later being revived in a hospital etc.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by xu]


The security services and police didn't just decide to shoot him because he was running away - they had survelliance on him before 7/7, he'd already popped up on the radar (so to speak), that's how they knew exactly where to find him after 7/7 and why they put him immediately under survelliance. They would have had a profile on him and known quite alot about him. This has been used successfully before - they have stopped 6 attacks to date in this country since 9/11. Most have been arrested without fuss - security services don't shoot if they don't have too.

Look at it from their point of view - 4 copycat attacks 2 weeks after 7/7, they know this fella is involved in some way (at least has terrorst links)...they see him leave his house with a large jacket on and head straight for the underground that was attacked the day previous. He's approached by armed police and told to stop and follow instructions - he runs straight into the tube station and boards a tube - what the hell are they suppose to think?????????

For any normal person, the threat of armed police is enough to make you do as they ask, if that isn't a big enough deterant then clearly your upto no good, therefore can't really complain when they take you down.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
im still sticking to my theory that yesterday was a copy cat, because i have never known to see a terrorist group to pull off the same attack twice


Then you must have never viewed news from Isreal before; you must have never viewed news from the 70's when the IRA used the same MO for dozens of bombings; you must have never viewed news reports from Indonesia before; you must have never read/viewed any news from the Congo, or from any other African nation in the past 20 years. Need I go on?

You need to look into this with a little more effort and a little less predisposition.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join