reply to post by eonpeon
1) Why did these guys mount the sidewalk and hit this guy first? Was he a target? Did they already know him or was this random?
We don’t know yet, its a good question but nobody seems to know if they sought him out specifically or if they planned this. I am inclined to say
that it was planned and that they had been following him or that they had been looking for a military man to target. They had knives and guns so they
were out to do something I have also read a report in the press about how a man is claiming that he was followed by the two men one night when he was
wearing military clothing.
There was a similar attack to this in 2007 that was foiled were the terrorists did have a specific target, a Muslim British Solider.
Like i say though just now that information if known does not seem to be in the public domain.
2) So they killed him in a terrible manner in broad daylight in a public place. Why? Why not bundle him into the car and do it elsewhere?
This whole attack was designed to maximise propaganda, they attacked in broad day light because they perceive that this will send a powerful message
of how troops are not even safe walking down their streets in the middle of the day. Had this happened say 3am on a Friday night it probably
wouldn’t have got the same attention, might not even have made the news all it would have looked like initially is another murder on a Friday night
in London and there would be few if any witnesses.
The car question is a good one, does seem like it would have been better to have taking him hostage made some demands then taken his head off on the
internet. However that is logistically very difficult you have two guys trying to subdue one fit man and get him into the car. Then you need to have a
secure place to keep him even if you manage to get him and in addition to this as soon as its made public the police are going to launch a massive man
hunt in which they could find and rescue him. The public execution on the streets of London in the middle of the day gets the message across just the
same with little fuss.
(3) After the event they hung around? Why? They stayed at the scene for a full 20 minutes.
Again comes back to this whole propaganda thing, it’s a huge motivation for terrorists, they wanted people to see who done this and why they done
4) The 48yo woman who spoke to them to try to calm them down went to great lengths to explain in her statement that the were not drugged or drunk,
like she was pre-empting that question.
That’s probably because she did pre-empt the questions, this is her moment of fame in a sad way, she knows that the papers are going to be calling
round for her story and she’s probably been rehearsing her answers and what not. It’s not evidence of any conspiracy its just natural that she
would be rehearsing the answers to her questions.
5) The police took 20 minutes to arrive, and those that did arrive first were heavily armed. HOW?! WHY?! London is always crawling with (unarmed)
police - why were no patrol/beat police on the scene first? This to me is the biggest question.
It was reported initially that they took 20 minutes from eye witnesses however the Met have said that it took 14 minutes for a Armed response vehicle
(ARV) to be on the scene (you are wrong to say they were not there first). On any given day in London there are between 13-21 ARVs on patrol in London
you can bet that in the afternoon on a week day it’s at the lower end of that scale. Based on the press reports i have read, initially the police
were called to a serious ongoing assault when officers turned up they quickly escalated the situation and called for urgent Armed back up as the guys
had a gun and then maintained a cordon. In addition to this because of all the shootings of religious rhetoric police also feared it was possible that
they were looking at potential suicide bombers.
The ARV arrived 14 minutes after the 999 call was passed, that’s actually pretty impressive, Armed cops are a limited resource even in London.
6) Armed police are stringently trained to shoot as an absolute last resort. Yes, the killers rushed them, but I am more surprised that an armed unit
The men rushed the armed cops with knifes and gun(s) so the police shot in self-defence and in the public interest. Based on current reports shooting
them was absolute the right thing to do.
What i think would be very interesting to find out is if they aimed for head shots, that would be very telling. Under the Operation Kratos the police
have authorisation to take head shots if they believe they are being confronted by a suicide bomber, so it would tell us a little bit more about the
police thinking at the time.
again wrong to say the ARV arrived first it did not.
7) London absolutely bristles with CCTV cameras. BRISTLES! Where is that footage?
Most CCTV is owned privately, I have seen a picture of the dead solider taken just before he was killed i think it may have been CCTV, as things
develop and more becomes known we will probably see pictures taking from various cameras.
8) In the video, the killer speaks with a clear British accent (if he was not born in the UK, he was most certainly raised there), yet he talks about
Not only was he born in the UK he was raised as a Christian and converted to Islam when he was 18, he is as British as me.
Also he does not talk about "his country" but rather "our lands"
this is common in fundamentalist rhetoric what he is talking about his "Muslim lands" he is saying "this happens to people every day in Iraq,
Afghanistan and so on at the hands of British soldiers".
I hope that clears some things up for you.