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.

 

Operation Kratos UK (Shoot to Kill With No Warning)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Interesting read from the Metropolitan Police Authority.

www.mpa.gov.uk...

One thing to note from the statistics that the police have killed a man through this operation on the 22nd July which indicates that out of 6 Operations where armed response units have been sent out 1 operation has been followed through to dramatic conclusion.

The question remains where did the intelligence come from in this case and was it so compelling that the Police believe that Jean Charles De Menezes was such a treat that a warning shouldn’t be given.

From this I do not mean to be critical of the Metropolitan Police Force for their actions on that day as I don't have all the evidence, but if you follow these guidelines as set down by the operation, this was bound to happen at some point. As I feel it will have done countless times in Israel, Sri Lanka and Russia!


[edit on 31/10/05 by WhatIsGoingOn]




posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Was the De Menezes operation; Andromeda, Beach or Clydesdale.

They have suggested from what they have said that it was most likely Clydesdale or Beach.

Would be interesting it if was actualy Adromeda



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
Was the De Menezes operation; Andromeda, Beach or Clydesdale.

They have suggested from what they have said that it was most likely Clydesdale or Beach.

Would be interesting it if was actualy Adromeda


Reading further material on the De Menezes incident it was all a big mistake.

In one of the failed suicide bombers rucksacks found near Shepherd’s Bush on the 21st a membership form for a gym was found. On this form the address of Scotia Road, London was given. Of course with this in mind MI5 set up surveillance on the block of flats indicated.

It happens that De Menezes lived in the same block of flats, due to some issues and the man watching the door going for a toilet brake they couldn’t confirm if De Menezes was the target when he was seen leaving the block of flats. Unit’s followed on foot and onto a bus and it seems that he behaved in a manner that could have been conceived as followed anti-surveillance measures i.e. getting off the first bus and then catching a later bus on the way to the tube station. When he arrived at the tube station the decision was made that he must be prevented from boarding the tube (if you where SO19 (Armed Security Team) how would you take that order?).

So all in all it sounds like a Beach Operation and one big mistake.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Thax for the information

Are you sure its correct?
1. I had in my mind for some reason that the flats were being investigated for longer than one day. I think that would be because i had heard someone say so somewhere. I might be misaken.

2. Did it come from the police? If so it cannot be trusted just like all the other information in this case.

People who are guilty like to make things appear to be what they are not.
It appears to be a mistake but there are still alot of unanswered questions, im noty drawing ANY conclusions yet.

If i was SO19 i would have realised that a block of flats contains alot of people in it, and that a membership for a gym is hardly damning evidence of Al-Qaeda in operation there. All the 7/7 bombers had families, it did not mean that there families needed to be assassinated.
I would have stopped people leaving, especialy to get on a bus.
Anyway I AM NOT SO19, i dont work there, so i dont know their policy and what they make decisions on. So Its unfair to ask me as some kind of justification for their actions.
I really wouldnt have done what they did.
Im assuming that they didnt make the decision they took orders from above to take him out.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
No as far as I am aware the flats were only under surveillance since 6am on the 22nd as such there was no electronics fitted either.

I agree they should have realised it wasn’t the target (Hussain Osman) certainly when he was followed onto the bus and certainly when he was under visual contact at all times except for when he left the flats.

In the information that I have the man following De Menezes realised it wasn’t Hussain Osman just as the shots were fired.

All in all with 2 bombs on bus’s and one of those a failed attempt by the same cell that Hussain Osman was in, I would have stopped him from getting on the bus in the first place. But that is all dependant on if you have got tactical back-up at that time.

All in all it just goes to show that Operation Kratos is flawed mistakes can happen and innocent people will die when they do.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatIsGoingOn

In the information that I have the man following De Menezes realised it wasn’t Hussain Osman just as the shots were fired.


Yes.
Well, maybe.
I think that sounds a little odd.

Something is being hidden about this shooting i think, lets just hope it was only some kind of police missunderstanding.

Did you hear about the train driver having the guns pointed at him?

Lots of things that happened are just ignored, and then lies put on top.
I dont think anyone can rely on police information, even leaks.
Everything is suspect.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   


Did you hear about the train driver having the guns pointed at him?

Lots of things that happened are just ignored, and then lies put on top.
I dont think anyone can rely on police information, even leaks.
Everything is suspect.


I didn't hear about the driver no. That's why I'm here to try and build a better picture of what is going on with such incidents.

All I can do is get the information and build a picture in my own mind everyone has a differnt story to tell.

It is my beleife that you can't even trust what you see with your own eye's, as you never know what is going on in the background and who is pulling the strings.

If you have got any more info let me know.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatIsGoingOn

I didn't hear about the driver no. That's why I'm here to try and build a better picture of what is going on with such incidents.

All I can do is get the information and build a picture in my own mind everyone has a differnt story to tell.

It is my beleife that you can't even trust what you see with your own eye's, as you never know what is going on in the background and who is pulling the strings.

If you have got any more info let me know.

Thanks


Yea same here

Thats all you can really do.

This link mentions it at the bottom, i had a better link once but i cant find it at the moment
www.aslef.org.uk...

It appears they are presenting it as just an accident.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
It certainly looks like the enquiry is going to come back with a verdict of tragic accident and we will never know what really happened.

If you find that other link let me know.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
You know reading the report it actually says:



This is not a ‘shoot to kill’ policy

So...why need the title "shoot to kill with no warning".



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Interesting read.

Anyway, i think this quote is open to speculation. A verbal challenge would stop any law abiding citizen in their tracks. Keep on running, then you take the consequences.


11. It should be noted that there is no legal requirement for an officer to give a verbal challenge before firing.(quote edited to show relevant point).


This one , i think, will stop all Japanese tourists from coming to the UK.(No racist innuendo intended)


5. These materials are so sensitive that the heat from a camera flash bulb or torch bulb will cause them to detonate. Therefore, tactics have to be available that will not impact on the explosive. (quote edited to show relevant point)


Imagine taking a picture of the "underground Station" to show your relatives back home, when the guy standing 20 yards away suddenly explodes? Is this information correct? can this happen? Could this happen?




20. The nature of the terrorist threat changes continually and it is therefore likely that our tactics will also develop. (quote edited to show relevant point)


Of course they change. What terrorist would go on a mission that his predecessors have already done? Would that not have been decimated if it all went to plan? The tactics of security have to develop accordingly to suit what ever is thrown at them/us. Logical thinking in my book.

I think this has been made public to try and put us, the public at some kind of ease, and to maybe throw some kind of warning to any would be bomber.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
There are always going to be differences of opinion when the main source of evidence is eye witness accounts. The police officers involved were faced with the possibility of a bloke with a bomb getting on a train in a hightened security situation caused by a number of blokes blowing up trains (and a bus). I know it is a cliche, but I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Has it not occurred to any of you that the people who pulled the trigger were subject to a degree of misinformation by their own heierarchy? The person who fires the first round is rarely privvy to all of the facts. I don't think that a police officer is going to risk his career and/or a lengthly prison sentence just to shoot some civvy 8 times in the head. The guy who fired believed that he was in the sh1t, and that the only way out was to nail the target.

The people who were at fault were those who presented the shooter(s) with their pre-deployment information. An armed police officer in the UK is only ever deployed if the danger of lethal weapons being used is positively identified.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I think you are jumping to conclsions there a bit paddy.

We have all been subject to a degre of misinformaton over this one. It had occureded to me at least.

Im not going to make any assumptions about what they did or did not know.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
You know reading the report it actually says:



This is not a ‘shoot to kill’ policy

So...why need the title "shoot to kill with no warning".


It is correct this isn't a shoot to kill policy. But the policy is if you do fire a weapon you aim for centre of mass - if all you can see is the head then it is a head shot and if you can see the body then you aim for the sternum which I think would put a bit of a dampener on anybody's day.

The title Shoot to Kill is me just picking up on the term as branded by the media in the UK as they sensationalise the above. But the main point here is that they can now shoot without issuing a warning if they see fit.



[edit on 3/11/05 by WhatIsGoingOn]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
PaddyInf has its spot on.If there is any failure its in the intelligence that was used during the whole incident.The trained Armed Police Officer is at the sharp end of this and obviously has to react almost instantly to the situation.
In terms of the press you are basically ****** if you do and ****** if you dont re counter terrorist operations.Had police failed to stop a bomber with the resulting casualties they would have been a lynching mob at the Metropolitan Police's door.Another aside is the use of non-police armed officers during this time eg Special Forces.I'm not sure if they are trained or instructed to give a warning before opening fire....



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatIsGoingOn

It is correct this isn't a shoot to kill policy. But the policy is if you do fire a weapon you aim for centre of mass - if all you can see is the head then it is a head shot and if you can see the body then you aim for the sternum which I think would put a bit of a dampener on anybody's day.

The title Shoot to Kill is me just picking up on the term as branded by the media in the UK as they sensationalise the above. But the main point here is that they can now shoot without issuing a warning if they see fit.



[edit on 3/11/05 by WhatIsGoingOn]

They could do that before...
As it says, there is no legal requirement for them to do it, but they do it anyway because they dont want to take lives...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join