If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
A human life is a human life and everybody should be entitled to one. Honest to God we're ending up like America. Shoot it, shoot it!
Apparently they followed him this morning with the intention of arresting him but he made a run for it inside the tube.
I'm not saying whether this is true or not but if that is the case the police had very genuine concerns about whether he was carrying a bomb. Perhaps one could think that the police should have tried to arrest him and not killed him- but then again if the carriage or place where it happened was full of people a great loss of life could have ensued. From that point of view the police did the right thing.
Then again this version of events could be made-up bollocks.
In any case, in the current climate I doubt there will be many voices demanding a full public enquiry and complaining of a 'senseless killing'.
Problem is that you have to get close enough to restrain them successfully. It really isn't as easy to do, as it is to type.
I'm still not convinced BTW that it was the Police and not SAS who were involved...
if this guy was indeed carrying a bomb, and people could have been killed, then why is there so much malice towards the police officers, they might have done their job with incompetence, yet how is a suicide bomber attempting any good at all?
You mean the same ones who killed him after watching him (apparently) but decided to let him go into a crowded area with what they thought were explosives. Then they decided he was a threat! How about arresting him like before he gets into crowds of people? Yeah thanks boys in blue.
So they let a suspected terrorist wander about who they thought was wired to go boom. Nice work whoever thought that one up. Obviously horseshit. you can't have it both ways. he's either dangerous and you nab him as soon as or he's harmless and you don't shoot him dead. (while in mufti in our current climate of warmth and hope for minorites)
It's shitbox PR.
Either way the police fucked up and someones dead because of it.
And we'll never know. the eywitness reports were just on the Beeb again but this time they have been helpfully edited - that guy no longer says they held him down and shot him in the head, you just get the "shots fired" bit. Well done BBC!
instead of hundreds?
this is when no matter what the victims intentions were at the time, the civil liberty police would come calling around
I saw that as well. Very fishy indeed. At best it makes the BBC look like a govenment PR machine. At worst... well, let's just say that those who dismiss Clandestine's 'conspiracy theories' regarding the London bombings might have to think again...
The point klintock is trying to make is that the "hundreds" you refer to, wouldn't have been at risk if the Police had acted before he entered the Tube system.
Why is that a bad thing?
Shouldn't we have a conscience?
Now of course, true to my previous arguments we have police being granted shoot to kill powers for those merely "suspected". It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out who will be routinely profiled as "suspect" and who predominantly will not.
Meanwhile is anyone bothering to examine new budget allocations, government contracts awarded, new Parliamentary measures being rushed through or inserted into otherwise innocuous sounding bills (mind you this last is a Congressional practice for which I defer to those more familiar with UK Parliamentary procedure)?
Point is, the ethos is established and still not a shred of conclusive evidence beyond some pictures shown, names asserted and not even a snippet of true investigative journalism to be found from any mainstream news source.
The question over Bliar's refusal to accede to a full Parliamentary (though preferably a thoroughly public) enquiry into the matter remains that which we've yet again seen a justifier of ID Cards post in another thread..."What are you hiding, Tony?".
Just a thought like, but maybe they were wanting to see where he was going? Maybe they were watching him in the hopes that he would lead them to some other folk, and thought they couldn't take that chance once he walked into a tube station.
We'll never know.
.. and yet you fail to provide anything from other sources...
You want to contradict the official story, then give us another information backed version and not more rhetoric.
I did think it odd that Our Glorious Leader was absent from our screens today. I just thought that it was because it was a fuck up. (I knew it was when the "bomb" wasn't reported within minutes) a bit like last time when the G8 was being chaired by TB. Hmm you've given me something to think about and no mistake.
I quite like the latest wizard wheeze myself - get members of the public to give "eyewitness reports" of what's happening. Very nice touch.
Again I am an admirer of the four photos the MET has released - 4 pictures caught on CCTV of four men in the centre of London at peak hours all alone face on to the camera. What are the odds?
Then they were VERY irresponsible and should be sacked for that too. you don't play follow the leader with a suicide bomber IF you have any regard for human life.
True. Without jumping to any conspiriacy conclusions though, what justifiction could they have had for letting him in there?
this is not a point of racism, but what can police do if none of the suspects are white?
No, much easier to assail those who suggest anything other than the groupthink explanation.
Perhaps we'll revisit this in 10-20 years when the bleating bandwagon has the benefit of hindsight once again to comprehend that those who benefit directly from public confusion and fright do not do so by mere opportune happenstance; not at the highest level of the geo-political game, my friend.
Meanwhile, I wonder how many innocent lives will be ruined in the domestic witchhunts and foreign invasions for which these events only serve to intensify hardline arguments whilst obviously damning all dissenting perspectives with rousing efficiency, as you so often demonstrate. If you want some insight into False Flag propaganda, there's decades of history on the practice by our own governments to be found. Google is your friend.
You go right ahead and call it rhetoric. I call it ability to read the writing on the wall.
Really?
Of course, someone is likely to say that giving this man his own page is just part of the cover-up...
Channel 4 did their solid stuff as usual though, fair play to em.
Oh, probably for the reasons you stated. I just think it's a bit shitty playing God with all those peoples lives instead of acting responsibly. I do realise that their needs to be a proper investifation etc etc but it's a bit much to let a suicide bomber wander about. (Which they are now saying he wasn't)
You post about "glaring absence of conclusive proof" without providing any yourself... two weeks after the first events...
We went through this last week. If you want to contradict something then you have to source it, you know the rules. Until then everything you post is just rhetoric.
'fairynuff, but then unless you think that the editor is on the PNAC payroll, you have to accept that the limetimed times means cuts. And we all know how the current media like to fill their bulletins with "experts" and speculation...
Bit of a kicker that last part, wouldn't you say?
Yeah I don't buy the whole PNAC puppetmasters thing. I know it's much easier to do than that. If you keep battering on about Al Qaeda on something as powerful as TV it will come to exist in some form or other. All those at the top do is set the frame - those who are unaware of the power of it will behave accordingly.
It was just a nice softener for the Govt. from state TV - nothing terribly mysterious about it really.
To quote Arnie Pye - "Yes Kent, yes I would"
Guess Tony's refusal to allow one doesn't strike you as having anything to hide though, eh?
but they were close enough. They piled on top of the guy before shooting. I'd say that if he's on the ground and you're on top of him, you are close enough to restrain him.
And most assuredly closed enough to either feel his coat for telltale materials strapped to him or more effectively open the coat to verify the presence of an explosive.
But then, having pressed for and been granted a host of new unrestrained policing powers, its far more exciting to exercise them at the first plausible opportunity which presents itself.
Thorough investifgations into terrorists I agree with. cynic that I am I don't want them always to be transparent and open.
I rather hope that we have a lot to hide - I don't want informants within terrorist groups being exposed, nor our intelligence gathering information brought into the public glare for terrorists to to see how they can put in place counter-measures.
i really dont know how anyone can justify a policy like this
now id like to see a real public investigation into what happened
nicely edited on the news it seems too
Don't be stupid, of course they would have let the guy know they were police. They wouldnt just have run at him guns drawn.
The perception of ever escalating foreign threat is precisely the ethos that sustains itself with such justifications for greater secrecy. Perhaps you think they are securing increasingly intrusive and repressive powers out of concern for your protection but thats a slippery slope that history has warned us to be vigilant against. Let us not forget COINTELPRO as but one example of secrecy abused.
The critical mind should demand conclusive proof of just whom it is posing the supposed threat before handing over the keys to the kingdom.