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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I have a Question:
In the Ken Livingston's view this must be horroble act of violence from the police department...after all this is killing of a person without fair court hearing,trial and sentence...just like the targeted killings/assassinations of the Israelis...
Maybe I don't get it but there must be great outrage in the british public from this "unlawful" act of violence,with no consideration of the human rights of the "bomber"(just like BBC is calling him - he's not a terrorist,but a bomber)...?




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
British police are on shoot to kill...
even the human rights group agree with this. If police suspect a suicide bomber, who wants to kill other humans, they have to stop him from blowing himself up.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Harrow Rd is a raid on a small internet cafe.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Aim was to arrest man




Brunt said officers had followed the man from his home and that the initial plan was to arrest him.

But from his home to Stockwell Tube, events overtook police and marksmen were forced to shoot.


So if they were staking him out, why let him leave his house wearing a "big coat" and begin mingling with the public?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by mpeake

I'm just trying to do a little rational thinking becore I go calling these well trained officers a bunch of trigger happy cowboys. Next time your neighborhood is blown up 2 times in a month, let me know how your local law enforcement deals with supected bombers.


I don't know what your problem is - but part of it seems to stem from reading comprehension issues. I have said TWICE in this thread that the only reason we haven't seen the same response here in the U.S. is that these types of attacks haven't started yet.


Val, I personally have no problems with you or anyone.
Sorry if I offended you. I assume you think I was reacting to a discussion you were having about comparing the US to the UK. I wasn't. I was responding to your comment that the shooting would have been "neglegent" if they were tailing a supected suicide bomber. I just happen to use the cowby term cause it encompasses that whole "neglegent" shooting mentality.

My point is, we know so little about what happened, to call this anything, one way or another, is ignorrant on our part. I am just trying not to judge these officers who were trying to save lives in the end.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Press conference starting now.

Police are to issue CCTV of all 4 of those wanted from yesterday.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by tommyc]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
If he was planning on killing anyone with a bomb the he deserved every single bullet that entered his disturbed body.

Looks like this is going to be a daily event for the next few days and then when its all over we should deserve an explanation about what the hell is going on in more detail.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
One bomber (left a bomb on the Stockwell to the Oval line) had 'NEW YORK' written on his top. The top has been found.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
British police are on shoot to kill...
even the human rights group agree with this. If police suspect a suicide bomber, who wants to kill other humans, they have to stop him from blowing himself up.


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?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake


My point is, we know so little about what happened, to call this anything, one way or another, is ignorrant on our part. I am just trying not to judge these officers who were trying to save lives in the end.


fair enough mpeake - and sorry for the snippiness - i think we are probably more on the same page than either of us realize.

The thing I'm trying to voice is the utter shock a moment like this brings to a citizen. This was an act of martial law. This dude (whether he proves to have deserved it or not) was convicted and sentence carried out via military rules of engagement - no court - that's martial law. I think people are having a hard time understanding that you can admit that and not be criticizing anybody. It's just a fact.

I'm going to give a true-life example to try to make everybody understand how this particular event is affecting me personally.

6 days after 9/11 I had to make an international business trip for my company. I walked into the airport in Dallas and there were National Guardsmen with banana clips in their rifles - just pacing back and forth. I went into the bathroom and cried like a baby. I'm estimating I spent 5-10 minutes trying to gain my composure. BECAUSE THAT WASN'T AMERICA.

This event is just like that moment for me. It doesn't matter that it's in Britain instead of America. Because it could have just as easily have been America, or Germany, or France. It's the moment our societal structure takes a stepwise, negative change (either by requirement, or not) that there is this soul-wrenching epiphany - one that I would just as soon not have to endure. I want to be happy and naive and 5 years old growing up in the country where there's nothing but red ants, snakes and spiders to worry about getting you.

These are the moments when you realize - that will never come again - because it never really was like that in the first place.


dom

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZMax

Originally posted by infinite
British police are on shoot to kill...
even the human rights group agree with this. If police suspect a suicide bomber, who wants to kill other humans, they have to stop him from blowing himself up.


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?


There is a difference. Police believed this guy might be an active suicide bomber, and I don't think anyone would argue with a "shoot at the head" policy in this case.

Targeted assassinations are somewhat different as the targets aren't usually armed at the time and are being hit because of their suspected involvement.

And of course, some people shot by the Israelis are nothing more than peace protestors trying to prevent Palestinian children from being shot by snipers. That's also a little different...

[edit on 22-7-2005 by dom]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Maybe the kid was Palestinian? That would make him cannon fodder right?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I'm reasonably sure the authorities wish they could have apprehended this suspect
unharmed for the purpose of investigation, but public safety and imminant threat
with such unusual behaviour would have made it a tough decision for anyone involved.

My best wishes to our friends in the UK.

Hang in there!



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dom

Originally posted by ZMax

Originally posted by infinite
British police are on shoot to kill...
even the human rights group agree with this. If police suspect a suicide bomber, who wants to kill other humans, they have to stop him from blowing himself up.


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?


There is a difference. Police believed this guy might be an active suicide bomber, and I don't think anyone would argue with a "shoot at the head" policy in this case.

Targeted assassinations are somewhat different as the targets aren't usually armed at the time and are being hit because of their suspected involvement.

And of course, some people shot by the Israelis are nothing more than peace protestors trying to prevent Palestinian children from being shot by snipers. That's also a little different...

[edit on 22-7-2005 by dom]


How Cute...Really!!!
You said it absolutly right - "the officers BELIEVED he was a terrorost"...I'm pretty sure the israelis BELIEVE it too,but BELIEVING(wonderful word by the way) is one thing,and court-sentence,based on facts,not on BELIEVES is something else...
I hope you get the point...it's only matter of point of view and your relative position to the situation...

[edit on 22-7-2005 by ZMax]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
A friend has told me that the police will soon be able to randomly check people in the streets for weaponary/bombs etc is this true?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
not sure,

rumours are flying around london at the moment



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Val, I think we definitley are on the same page...

One thing that I have had to come to grips with though, is that law enforcement will never be the same after 9/11 (and perhaps even before 9/11). Should cops be judge and jury? Obviously not. But, at what point do we say the greater good is being done when situations like this arise? I just don't know anymore. Is the quasi military state worth losing certain freedoms? Again I say probably not. But, then again, it's a thin line when you have to juggle saving lives verses losing certain civil liberties.

Right now, I have a mindset that thinks since I am not a threat to security, why should I worry if law enforcement is making more severe judgement calls when they are pushed to do so? The question is, when will that line be crossed when, security threat or not, I and those like me are unjustly put in those situations as well?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZMax
Maybe I don't get it but there must be great outrage in the british public from this "unlawful" act of violence,with no consideration of the human rights of the "bomber"(just like BBC is calling him - he's not a terrorist,but a bomber)...?


It was not an unlawful act by police as you put it. They had ordered him to stop. He did not, in fact he started to run jumped over a turnstile while fleeing away. If he had other intentions he would have stopped, simple as that.

He got what he deserved.
Edit to add given the current situation where he was suspected as being a terrorist.




[edit on 7/22/2005 by shots]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
Val, I think we definitley are on the same page...



Yeah - we're on the same page. I'm going to go find me a bathroom.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
WTF is Going On in London?

Has Fear Taken Over?



This Situation is Getting out of Control...

[edit on 22/7/05 by Souljah]

I think so, because if he really were a bomber, wouldn't he just have detonated the bomb? He was in the subway after all.

I'm sure we'll never find out what was really in his backpack.




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join