How do you find out which ones should be incinerated and which ones should not be? Who should decide this? [/b][/quote]I know that I would love to have 5 minutes alone with one of them. Wouldn't you?


When one is caught red handed, dead to rights, plotting to kill people, making bombs to commit acts of terrorism, funneling money to known terrorist groups or trying to kill people in the manner that they do, then what do you think we should do to them, counselor?


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Well DC, does this include people who wear heavy coats in the summer?

If you are going to quote me Don T, then please don't take things out of context by omitting the complete conversation. I think that if you put your ORIGINAL answer ( see above ) to my question back into the equation, it makes the others see what you originally said what should be done too. :rolleyes:


Don Cardi

Mmm. So if you were on the train, or your loved one was killed on the train by a suicide bomber who the police didn't stop, would you then be asking why they didn't stop him when they had the chance?

Hindsight is 20/20, and you're seeing perfectly. How were they supposed to know he wasn't a suicide bomber? If he hadn't darted for the subway car, I doubt he would've been killed.

I don't think many people will disagree that if a real suicide bomber was killed in this fashion with a real threat to harming the public there'd be a problem.

It's bad intelligence. Bad intelligence led to this mans death. It's very sad and regretable. I personally don't blame the police with the guns. They did what they thought they had to do in the heat of it all. Though uniformed officers should have been used. If I came from a Brazilian ghetto and I had plain clothes people aiming guns at me and shouting in a language I don't understand I'm doing a runner too. If uniformed coppers had guns aiming at me I'm not moving an inch.

I have a freind in the police that actually informed me today the supposedly shoot to kill policy isn't the official protocol for the police to follow. Apparantly warning shots and rubber bullets are to be fired first. The police are going to get sued and lose.

True, but when you look at the context of the situation, was protocol prudent in this case, at that time? I mean, if they fire warning shots, or rubber bullets, and he still detonates the bomb (if he was a terrorist), it's all over anyways. I think the police will at least have a case, though I suspect they probably will lose, knowing how today's systems work.

True, but when you look at the context of the situation, was protocol prudent in this case, at that time? I mean, if they fire warning shots, or rubber bullets, and he still detonates the bomb (if he was a terrorist), it's all over anyways. I think the police will at least have a case, though I suspect they probably will lose, knowing how today's systems work. [/b][/quote]What if he was carrying a concealed hand grenade with no pin?

Well, that's been my point all along. The police didn't know whether he was a terrorist or not, and consequently, acted on their best judgement, and with the prejudice that was determined by the bombings.

Mmm. So if you were on the train, or your loved one was killed on the train by a suicide bomber who the police didn't stop, would you then be asking why they didn't stop him when they had the chance?

Hindsight is 20/20, and you're seeing perfectly. How were they supposed to know he wasn't a suicide bomber? If he hadn't darted for the subway car, I doubt he would've been killed. [/b][/quote]If, if, if ,if if...we having a saying in Ireland "If your granny had've had balls, she'd have been your grandad!"

There is one question no-one has raised. On 7th July a bus was blown up in London killing, I believe, 13 people. On 21st July, a terrorist tried to blow up another bus and failed. On 22nd July Mr de Menezes left his flat, got on a bus, entered a tube station and was shot, as it turns out, seven times in the back of the head and once in the back. The question is this, how come he was not a threat on the bus?? and yet became a threat as soon as it looked like he was going to buy a Tube ticket??

The people of London must be frightened enough by suicide bombers living in their midst. It's a pity we have to add to their fears with an armed police force acting on ignorance, mis-information, poor intelligence and prejudice. :rolleyes:

Sorry. You run from the cops, and dive on a train, days after a suicide bombing, and I'm blowing your ass away. It's as simple as that. No convictions about it.

Hopefully you never have a career as a law enforcement officer

The people of London must be frightened enough by suicide bombers living in their midst. It's a pity we have to add to their fears with an armed police force acting on ignorance, mis-information, poor intelligence and prejudice. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]I fear the same thing everyday as I walk through the Port Authority Bus Terminal. 1) Will I be standing next to a bomber, 2) will I happen to make a wrong move and be mistaken for a bomber, or the person next to me and I happen to be in the path of bulletts.

That is right, just what the terrorist want. FEAR!

Then everyone should fight on what should be done about these scumbags. One group turning to the Government and saying keep us safe, you must keep us safe, it is your duty. While another group of (insert your own word here) is crying don't outstep your bounds or infringe on my rights. I don't want to live in a police state. oh, but put yourselves between those nasty bombers and me. Risk your life's so I can walk around without any problems. Of course I will go right along bitching about everything you try and do, because that is the way (blanks) are.

They bomb Egypt and its hotels to drive away the people. They left in droves along with the dollars that make livings for so many people. Cripple the way of life for everyone. Take down the major players at the base. The almighty Dollars.

Remember how two men crippled a whole city by shooting people at random. No one would go out to eat, shop or walk along the streets. Business were hurting and big time at that.People lost their jobs. Tourist would keep on driving rather then stay in that area. Others would duck down while pumping gas and then just take a half tank because they didn't want to be out to long in the line of fire.
The price we paid on 9/11 will live on and on thru fear by so many. That is right, just what the terrorist want. FEAR!

Hopefully you never have a career as a law enforcement officer [/b][/quote]Probably better, I'd shoot first, and ask questions later.

I'm pray we don't have a day where the cops don't shoot, and a terrorist blows himself up. I can hear the outpouring of condemnations towards law enforcement for not stopping him/her.

I hope I would never have to make that choice. But if it was him or me, You bet your ass I wouldn't think twice.

I still have not heard any consistent accounting of what happened. There are all kinds of stories out there, and I dont know how anyone can state an opinion until we know the facts. Is there anyone who can say with certainty what the facts were here? And if so how is it the London cops were saying one day that the dead guy was "definitely connected" with the attacks when they had to know this was a fabrication.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

Why am I not surprised to hear that.

I do so like a reasoned, rational approach to counter-terrorism!

Sure you'd watch him ... anyone would, it's only sensible. But would you shoot him? That's the point.

No-one's saying that the police shouldn't react at all to suspicious individuals, but only that they act proportionately and rationally. We need a policy of, and the means for, incapacitation and capture so that potential terrorists can be interrogated, yielding information. Wars are won by intelligence, not by tit-for-tat shootings.

Yup, I would have shot him. If he came thru my check point, didn't stop and tried to avoid the checkpoint, when confronted he ran,with three other agents also on the move and then ran to a train which I know was the targets of Terrorists during a large volume time period with thousands of people. Yup, I admit I would have shot the poor bastard. Yes, right in the head where I know there would be no explosives to set off.

so I guess everyone better be careful, because I may just be one of those sick bastards with a gun, looking for scumbags. So if its 90 plus outside, you better leave your coat at home!

Two days after major terrorist bombings, a man already under surveillance ignores police warnings to stop, and proceeds to dash towards a subway car, which is where one of the suicide bombings have occured.

Proportionally and rationally, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Should they have sat him down and invited him for tea? You talk about incapacitation, how do you know it would've worked, had he been a terrorist? What if he had detonated his payload?

You wanted the police to react in a situation that defied convention and rationality, where the split-second decision could've meant the death of a potential terrorist or the death of hundreds.

I want the members in this thread to explain to me what the police should've done when the man didn't stop running, went through thee subway checkpoints, and dove onto a subway car? What should they have done, proportionally and rationally?

Please, this isn't a vendetta killing. The London police didn't just round up some random man and killed him, they shot him because there was a legitimate chance he could've been a suicide bomber.

For that matter, incarceration is not good enough for these terrorists. I read an article the other day quoting one of the Guantanamo detainees who said that "as soon as he got out, I'd kill more Americans the first chance I could."

In fact, from the Washington Post:

Or from the AP...

Is this how you win a war? :rolleyes:

Two days after major terrorist bombings, a man already under surveillance ignores police warnings to stop, and proceeds to dash towards a subway car, which is where one of the suicide bombings have occured.[/QB][/quote]It is interesting that the full facts of this case have yet to come out. As yet there has been no CCTV footage released of Mr de Menenzes running anywhere. But somethings are not in dispute. Mr de Menenzes was not under surveillance. It was not 90 degrees plus, remember this was before 10:00am in the morning. The victim was not wearing a heavy winter coat. He was wearing what is known here as a "puffa jacket". Though these are bulky they are in fact quite light. It would be unusual to wear one on a summer's day but his man was from Brazil. I well remember the looks I got walking around Barcelona in a T-shirt in February while the locals were overcoats and scarves. I thought it was quite warm. They thought it was freezing! He did not break through any checkpoint.

The police found an address in one of the unexploded bombs. When they arrived at this address they found that it was an apartment block with 9 apartments. They were searching one apartment when Mr de Menenzes emerged from an apartment above on his way to work. The police decided to follow him. That was the extent of the surveillance and intelligence.

Why did Mr de Menenzes run?? Well it's a bit hard to ask him now.

Of course the question nobody can answer is...why didn't they shoot him on the bus???

The police have caught one of the terrorist that failed to blow up a bomb the other week! found him hiding in Birmingham, good news to say the least.

Did he run from the police and onto a bus? I swore it was a subway car..?

Did he run from the police and onto a bus? I swore it was a subway car..? [/b][/quote]Yes he was shot on the Tube (Subway), but he had got to the Tube station by bus. My question is, given that there had been a bus blown up on 07/07 killing 13 and an failed attempt to blow up a bus the previous day, and given the police believed this man to be a suicide bomber, how could the police be sure he wasn't going to detonate the bomb on the bus? Maybe there is a straight forward answer to this.

Just curious.

How forthcoming are the London police in these matters? Do they share their investigations with the media? I wonder if the U.S. new agencies or world agencies get a watered down version.

Just wondering.

What if you were deaf and your wife just sent you a text message to meet her at the hospital, she was in labor. You start running for the next train. You don't hear the police yelling at you to stop.

MaryCas,

The Police here are very measured about what they tell us - they do let us know what is going on, but only after a certain amount of time has passed and so as to not jeapodize the investigation. A fair amount of the info that we get in the media is from 'unconfirmed' sauces - and we normally hear a few different versions of the story before the truth comes out.

I think that the US news agencies sometimes give out more information than our own - for example, there were a number of photgraphs released yesterday from abc news that the UK networks bourght off them.

Just curious - what if a terrorist runs on a subway train, and the police don't stop him when they have the chance because they are afraid of political/legal repurcussions, and the terrorists detonates his bomb and kills 100's of people?

Since it's a "terrorist" running on to the train, I'd say that the police didn't do a good job.

Since it's a "terrorist" running on to the train, I'd say that the police didn't do a good job. [/b][/quote]Yeah and if he had room to run "on the train" then it wouldn't be rush hour, so he would not be much of a terrorist.