Several explosions on London Underground

[Famine]

And the reason the AP printed the "unnamed source" story?

And the reason they retracted it? Perhaps because it was unsupportable without any evidence.

 

[rk]

And the reason they retracted it? Perhaps because it was unsupportable without any evidence.

Posting both sides of a story is not a retraction. How about when Joe Wilson said there was no uranium connection. Did Dick Cheney automatically make Joe a liar when he said he'd never even heard of or met the man? You have made no response to my question:

"Why did they print it in the first place?"

It seems clear that some Israeli or British official would attempt to spin it off in the face of its implications, perhaps it was "unsupportable without any evidence," yet they still took it to press. Am I the only one who notices these glaring little details?


To not listen to any particular freak radio personality is not a measure of intelligence, to continue personal attacks in public forum is. It is not only churlish, it is indicative of underlying sentiment, lacks tact and is undeserved of a direct response.
Mebe you outta start blasting away wif yer dubble barrel, eh cuz?

 

[Famine]

Posting both sides of a story is not a retraction. How about when Joe Wilson said there was no uranium connection. Did Dick Cheney automatically make Joe a liar when he said he'd never even heard of or met the man? You have made no response to my question:

"Why did they print it in the first place?"

It seems clear that some Israeli or British official would attempt to spin it off in the face of its implications, perhaps it was "unsupportable without any evidence," yet they still took it to press. Am I the only one who notices these glaring little details?

Why does any "news-reporting" body "print" anything? In order to get the scoop - the first published report of an incident.

History is replete with occasions where someone has decided to "publish and be damned" without checking their facts first, just for the perceived kudos of getting there first. Piers Morgan lost his job as editor of one of our national newspapers after printing pictures of UK troops abusing Iraqi prisoners of war - the photos were staged as a hoax, but they published anyway in order to get there first. And one newspaper had to pull its entire first print run after printing the story of the Queen Mother's death - FIFTEEN YEARS before she actually died...


It's so very easy to say that refuting a story is "spin" by some "officials" as part of a conspiracy. That presumes that every story printed is 100% true. One would assume that someone who can see glaring little details that the rest of us obviously miss would have realised that.

 

[rk]

History is replete with occasions where someone has decided to "publish and be damned" without checking their facts first, just for the perceived kudos of getting there first. Piers Morgan lost his job as editor of one of our national newspapers after printing pictures of UK troops abusing Iraqi prisoners of war - the photos were staged as a hoax, but they published anyway in order to get there first. And one newspaper had to pull its entire first print run after printing the story of the Queen Mother's death - FIFTEEN YEARS before she actually died...


One would assume that someone who can see glaring little details that the rest of us obviously miss would have realised that.

The premature announcement of Queen Elizabeth's death resulted from a Sky Television rehersal for the event. Yet another example of leaked information, the story would would have indeed provided a scoop to the Australian media, too bad for them the observer didn't realize what he'd witnessed.
Too bad the US administration doesn't have an iron grip on our media, otherwise they might be able to portray Guantanamo as a resort community. I guess freedom still means something here.
History is rife with examples of those in power minstrating events and laws to suit their needs, does everyone REALLY believe that the US carriers just happened to be out on un-escorted maneuvers (an act never before or since practiced) during that fateful December morning in 1941?
Pilots who refused to attack the aforementioned Liberty were sentenced to 15 year jail terms; no wonder, as when released they promptly attempted to make amends to survivors, a fact which could have been ugly during the subsequent investigations.
On September 11, the one plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had pieces of itself and contents; papers, seats and human remains shower shocked witnesses six miles from it's impact crater, a fact which is still recorded in the archives of The Pennsylvania Star-Gazette, yet the vast majority of Americans still accept the story that it was brought down by heroes rather than an air-to-air missile.
Does everyone here consider Pierre Salinger a liar? While it's true his name is French and the President he was spokesperson for was the damnably liberal JFK, his credentials were good enough to earn him a 5 year stint as a major ABC news correspondent. He has sacraficed his career in the US by insisting flight 800 was shot down, not the victim of an electrical short in the fuel tank, which is the official explanation. An excellent version of the story can be found here, although the internet is replete with similar articles, including eyewitness accounts.
http://www.welfarestate.com/twa800/pierre.htm

There are to many such events and contradictory stories to apply the theorim credited to William of Ockham in regards to the Netenyahu story.

 

[Famine]

So, your natural assumption is that, because there are seemingly contradictory events in the past where the media have reported one thing and "officials" have said another is that EVERY occasion where the media and "officials" disagree is a case where the media had it right first time and the "officials" tried to spin it, or cover it up?

The media never lies, yet "officials" always do?


Occam's Razor can ALWAYS be applied.

 

[rk]

So, your natural assumption is that, because there are seemingly contradictory events in the past where the media have reported one thing and "officials" have said another is that EVERY occasion where the media and "officials" disagree is a case where the media had it right first time and the "officials" tried to spin it, or cover it up?

The media never lies, yet "officials" always do?


Occam's Razor can ALWAYS be applied.

My natural assumption is to doubt absolutely everything, especially when circumstances and actions align in what is too "liberally" coined coincidence, or when a particular individual or group has an advantage to be gained through a specific interpretation of events.

 

[Solid Fro]

Oooh, more conspiracy theories.

Popular Mechanics debunk the 9/11 conspiracies.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Democrats debunk Guantanamo conspiracies. Stating that the terrorist inmates are "well fed" and "living in the tropics."

http://premium.cnn.com/2005/US/06/25/guantanamo.us.ap/

I guess Pop Mechanics and CNN are both lying, right?



Not too sure on the Pearl Harbor "conspiracy". Seems like many Geocities websites want to cover the conspiracy... it sounds even more idiotic than the so called "j00s atT@ckING da LIBErtY!" conspiracy. It's very easy to blame everyone but the Japanese after the event occurred.

 

[Famine]

My natural assumption is to doubt absolutely everything, especially when circumstances and actions align in what is too "liberally" coined coincidence, or when a particular individual or group has an advantage to be gained through a specific interpretation of events.

So you're blindly accepting a single unsubstantiated report because were it true some Israelis would have got an advantage?

Staggering.

 

[ledhed]

Rk do you know what happens when an air to air or SAM hits an air liner ? ( most explode in the area they do not actually HIT anything ) It damages the air liner and MAY cause it to crash..unless of course the fuel tanks are hit by the shrapnel THEN it MAY be blown apart and large chunks will be spread over a large area...absolutely NOTHING like what happened in PA .
Also since the US carriers ( they did have cruiser and destroyer escort ) were out delivering aircraft to Wake and Midway AND were even considered at the time to be support for the BATTLESHIPS that just happened to be at anchor in Pearl harbor . You see Battleships were still considered at the time to be the most important and powerfull ships of the fleet . Also since Japan wanted to attack the US and even if we were not suprised at Pearl Harbor we would have gone to war with them no matter where they attacked . And no matter how successfull they happened to be at it . Why bother with conspiracy ?
The Liberty was played down because we were attacked by a supposed friend ....Isreal . We should have retaliated and destroyed an air feild or two ..I for one would have been happier if we at least shot down the planes that attacked . But it was a political decision that would have had a huge effect in the region ...things happen in war . The US has been involved in a few of those " things " ...so we forgave it ..or filed it away for the future . Its still far from a conspiracy .
To believe most conspiracys you must disbelieve the simple things ...like facts . Most conspiracy theorys do not survive close inspection . Otherwise they would be conspiracy facts .

 

[sukerkin]

Quite well expressed Led 👍.

I'm abstaining from taking a stance on any of this but it is true that in order for most conspiracy theories to 'stand up' you do have to ignore 'inconvenient' truths.

That's why they tend to be a matter of faith or belief rather than investigatable fact.

I have to admit that the Pearl Harbour conspiracy was a new one on me - I'd be interested in reading more on it, for no other reason that it's so ludicrous. I'm assuming that it essentially says that the U.S. knew the attack was coming and moved their carriers away to preserve them?. If that's so then Led is perfectly correct in his assertion that the carriers were not considered to be a potent weapon in the arsenal of seapower; battleships were called Capital Ships because they were seen as the pinnacle of naval force projection and if the Americans would chose to 'preserve' anything it would be them.

Anyhow, that's a topic for another thread I guess. I'll go and do a little research .

 

[rk]

Oooh, more conspiracy theories.

Popular Mechanics debunk the 9/11 conspiracies.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Democrats debunk Guantanamo conspiracies. Stating that the terrorist inmates are "well fed" and "living in the tropics."

http://premium.cnn.com/2005/US/06/25/guantanamo.us.ap/

I guess Pop Mechanics and CNN are both lying, right?



Not too sure on the Pearl Harbor "conspiracy". Seems like many Geocities websites want to cover the conspiracy... it sounds even more idiotic than the so called "j00s atT@ckING da LIBErtY!" conspiracy. It's very easy to blame everyone but the Japanese after the event occurred.

The fact remains that the Japanese, clearly imperalistic in intent, were attempting to expand on their empire. Having established a firm foothold in the Chinese mainland, and significant territorial gains in the Pacific island chains, Japan was rapidly emerging as a force with which to be reckoned. Additionally, the soci-political system at the time prevented treaties or favorable alliances, which meant the problem could not be bartered or negotiated away. The heavy shipping taxes and tarriffs against the Japanese served only to exasperate the animosities. An excellent example of America's not-so-subtle manipulation of events is demonstrated in the dispatch of Claire Chenault and his Flying Tigers to help "defend" China. Flying antiquated P-40's (the vastly superior Wildcats were reserved for the decks of the Yorktown and Enterprise and mainland US defense) and boasting the Chinese Sun insignia, they performed poorly but adequately against the escorting Zero's - adequate enough to irk the Japanese emperor, which arguably was the sole goal. he responded by signing a non-agression pact with Hitler, widely propagandized as the "Axis" about which the world would soon be revolving... sound familiar? See, our current president (or at least his advisory staff) has studied history too. Pearl Harbor was positioned as the jewel of American military operations in the Pacific. Nevermind that it's fleet consisted of sluggish and incapable WWI battleships, it's air force was entirely inferior planes, first generation B-17's, nose heavy and undergunned P-39 Airacobras, and the tractorlike P-40 Tomahawks. the only plane that saw significant use after the attack was the PBY Catalina, a twin engined seaplane that was useful for submarine hunting and search-and-rescue. The entire lot of Pearl military machinery could be described as outmoded war tools waiting to be scrapped. Couple this knowlege with the fact that the Japanese military cipher had already been broken, as described in the "History Channel" special about the Pearl conspiracy, and you can see that the stage had been set. Even the famous movie "Tora, Tora, Tora" alludes to the fact. When the clearly nervous carrier commander (sailing a carrier without a naval escort is an extremely risky practice) interprets semaphore signals from the other nearby carrier, the heavy cloud cover under which they were hiding would have prevented the only escort, the Wildcats, from providing protection.
If one can believe the historically recorded facts of the event, the American "blunders," one can easily see why extremists link the event to the attack of the WTC.
Since Peter Salinger appears to be an undisputed authority on accidental jetliner shootings, perhaps the statements of an even more qualified commentator, a former Air Force and commercial jetliner pilot, can offer perspective on the circumstances surrounding the demise of flight 93, the plane that crashed on 9/11.
http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623

The Liberty was attacked by combined elements of the Israeli Air Force and Navy, the crews of which were most likely of Jewish faith, and the attack and subsequent apologies are well documented in widely respected databases, including US Government archives. Should I provide links?

I might add that I believe the attack was quite passionate against what was supposed to be a WWII era Egyptian horse transport and was likely done to silence the Liberty which would have indirectly alerted the Egyptians to sensetive Israeli troop deployments.

 

[Solid Fro]

Quite well expressed Led 👍.

I'm taking taking a stance on any of this but it is true that in order for most conspiracy theories to 'stand up' you do have to ignore 'inconvenient' truths.

That's why they tend to be a matter of faith or belief rather than investigatable fact.

I have to admit that the Pearl Harbour conspiracy was a new one on me - I'd be interested in reading more on it, for no other reason that it's so ludicrous. I'm assuming that it essentially says that the U.S. knew the attack was coming and moved their carriers away to preserve them?. If that's so then Led is perfectly correct in his assertion that the carriers were not considered to be a potent weapon in the arsenal of seapower; battleships were called Capital Ships because they were seen as the pinnacle of naval force projection and if the Americans would chose to 'preserve' anything it would be them.

Anyhow, that's a topic for another thread I guess. I'll go and do a little research .

Right, the aircraft carrier did not become dominant in naval warfare until the battle of Midway.

The US Navy did not have a fighter that matched the Japanese Zero. If the US carriers were at Pearl Harbor, the F4F Wildcats would have done no better than the P-40. It wasn't until the F4U Corsair that the US Navy had a fighter that could outclass the Zero.

 

[rk]

Rk do you know what happens when an air to air or SAM hits an air liner ? ( most explode in the area they do not actually HIT anything ) It damages the air liner and MAY cause it to crash..unless of course the fuel tanks are hit by the shrapnel THEN it MAY be blown apart and large chunks will be spread over a large area...absolutely NOTHING like what happened in PA .

So if a heat seeking missile exploded just aft of the engine (I believe they are designed to disable rather than destroy), it would be impossible for it to rupture the fusilage, spilling contents over a narrow swath, while the stricken plane traveled in a downward trajectory to an eventual crash, possibly miles from the explosion?

Also since the US carriers ( they did have cruiser and destroyer escort ) were out delivering aircraft to Wake and Midway AND were even considered at the time to be support for the BATTLESHIPS that just happened to be at anchor in Pearl harbor . You see Battleships were still considered at the time to be the most important and powerfull ships of the fleet .

While it is true that the Pearl based carriers were escorted (I had misquoted my sources), four other US carriers were un or underescorted: Saratoga, Yorktown, Ranger and Wasp. The superiority of airpower over seapower had already been established, military planners were avidly watching Hitler's Luftwaffe succeses (WWII Germany had a relatively weak navy, the U-boat exploits were hardly the work of capital type ships as they relied on stealth rather than might). The trend is nicely described in this book (as review):
http://stonebooks.com/archives/010305.shtml

Also since Japan wanted to attack the US and even if we were not suprised at Pearl Harbor we would have gone to war with them no matter where they attacked . And no matter how successfull they happened to be at it . Why bother with conspiracy ?

Part of the conspiracy would have been to get the Japanese to "want" to attack America. It is widely believed that FDR needed to convince the American public, decidedly non-interventionist, that there was clear and present danger and he wanted to catalyze a national war effort. Extremists go so far as to say he was a Stalinist and also was compelled by Jewish financiers and politicians. Ergo, if Japan attacked the US, Germany became an enemy through the widely publicized "Axis" agreement. I have read that spies provided compelling evidence by revealing Hitlers transcontenental weapons development.

The Liberty was played down because we were attacked by a supposed friend ....Isreal . We should have retaliated and destroyed an air feild or two ..I for one would have been happier if we at least shot down the planes that attacked . But it was a political decision that would have had a huge effect in the region ...things happen in war . The US has been involved in a few of those " things " ...so we forgave it ..or filed it away for the future . Its still far from a conspiracy .
To believe most conspiracys you must disbelieve the simple things ...like facts . Most conspiracy theorys do not survive close inspection . Otherwise they would be conspiracy facts .

The act of "playing down" is in itself a conspiracy. Read the historical accounts, how defensive fighters were ordered to return to deck, how eyewitness evidence was discarded in favor of hearsay. Altogether indicative that events and circumstances were minstrated to provide a specific interpretation of the facts of the attack, you yourself agree that we should have retaliated. I feel that the intelligence leak of Israel's expansionist movements was intended and the attack itself was in retailation. Perhaps not everyone in the US military or government believed that a nation formed in the '40's should be allowed to attack neighboring countries unchecked.

 

[kikie]

What's the latest news on the bombing of today?

 

[McLaren]

What's the latest news on the bombing of today?

Check the Rumble Strip.\
Supposedly, they did it to cause panic, not death, and that these were copycat attacks of the 7/7/05 attack.

 

[kikie]

Check the Rumble Strip.\

I did but after I posted my question here first

 

[smellysocks12]

Check the Rumble Strip.\
Supposedly, they did it to cause panic, not death, and that these were copycat attacks of the 7/7/05 attack.

They were probably too retarded to put together the "how to make a bomb" recipe they found on the internet, so it didn't kill anyone.

 

[rk]

They were probably too retarded to put together the "how to make a bomb" recipe they found on the internet, so it didn't kill anyone.

Well they certainly accomplished one thing: Random package searches on the London and New York subways are now a fact of life. Better take a cab if your trip is to deliver an ounce of pot

 

[ledhed]

The London cops saved themselves the cost of at least one trial . Thats how to deal with the terrorist . One down ?????? to go .

 

[Danoff]

The London cops saved themselves the cost of at least one trial . Thats how to deal with the terrorist . One down ?????? to go .

"suspected" terrorist. I still haven't figured out what it was the required deadly force...

 

[sukerkin]

Hi Dan

Simple security required it my friend.

The chap (who was a suspect by the way not some random 'shopper') was fleeing from armed officers and jumped onto a crowded train. They tackled him and made sure he couldn't set off any explosives he had the only way you can.

They were doing their job - well done to them too.

If you find it disagreeable, then I'm sorry.

But I'm willing to bet you won't find many people on that train who'll share your opinion.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

They were probably too retarded to put together the "how to make a bomb" recipe they found on the internet, so it didn't kill anyone.

The detonators went off but the bombs didn't, and I think they said even one of the detonators failed.

It doesn't look like they were copycat though, the police have announced that the explosive used bears "striking similarities" to a quantity found in one of the four bombers house.

Maybe we are making it harder for them, it would appear that these bombs were rushed. There have been several arrests, in UK, Egypt and Pakistan, maybe the guy who oversees the bomb making was one of them.

They unexploded bombs are providing a wealth of forensic evidence

"suspected" terrorist. I still haven't figured out what it was the required deadly force...

I think it is that the police thought he was going to manually detonate a bomb that he carried, that is about the only scenario I can think of that required him to be shot five times.
They were plain clothes police, so this was an intelligence lead event, the man had probably been followed.

 

[rk]

Did the shooter cops happen to say how a big an undetonated bomb the man had? What if he just had an expired green card (or the English equivalent) and spoke poor English? Is it his responsibility to know evading arrest is now a capital crime, or is culling a percentage of the population in the name of security now the accepted norm?
I just better make sure I don't wear a heavy coat on the subway, or have a relationship with one of these armed cops' girlfriends...It used to be they had to carry "throwdowns (51st paragraph)," unregistered guns they could put in the hand of a person they'd killed. Now they just have to say, "I'll give you to the count of three; one, two, BLAM."

*note to self: If I ever win political office and want to form a police state, I could kill a few of my constituents in the name of greater security. You know, sacrafice a few for the good of the whole. Of course, I'd have to do something about that sticky "right to bear arms" clause in the Constitution.

Seems to me the terrorists are winning, they have already gotten us to accept the dismissal of due process.

 

[ledhed]

Did the shooter cops happen to say how a big an undetonated bomb the man had? What if he just had an expired green card (or the English equivalent) and spoke poor English? Is it his responsibility to know evading arrest is now a capital crime, or is culling a percentage of the population in the name of security now the accepted norm?
I just better make sure I don't wear a heavy coat on the subway, or have a relationship with one of these armed cops' girlfriends...It used to be they had to carry "throwdowns (51st paragraph)," unregistered guns they could put in the hand of a person they'd killed. Now they just have to say, "I'll give you to the count of three; one, two, BLAM."

*note to self: If I ever win political office and want to form a police state, I could kill a few of my constituents in the name of greater security. You know, sacrafice a few for the good of the whole. Of course, I'd have to do something about that sticky "right to bear arms" clause in the Constitution.

Seems to me the terrorists are winning, they have already gotten us to accept the dismissal of due process.

last I looked London was not covered under the US constitution . Nor do the normal London police carry weapons never mind " throwdowns " .
What the police did say was that he was under watch as a bombing suspect at the time so the police following this dead dude were from the anti terror unit and other special units . They are trying to prevent people from blowing themselves up along with a train .

You of course would rather wait until he blows himself up thus proving beyond a reasonable doubt that its ok to maybe shoot him in the head . ( it could be a government conspiracy that hid a bomb on him when he was sleeping without his knowlage and was triggered by the secret society of gumby lovers to make it look like he was a terrorist) .

Is it not hot walking around with that tin foil hat all the time ?

 

[rk]

Thank you, you stumbled right into my trap, and I didn't even need honey.

last I looked London was not covered under the US constitution .

Well, what a "coincidence" it happened there, huh.

Nor do the normal London police carry weapons never mind " throwdowns " .

I had always felt the English were more progressive socially. Did you ever stop to wonder why the London Police were "proudly" unarmed? Nevermind, that little bit of progressive socialisim is now an anachronisim.

What the police did say was that he was under watch as a bombing suspect at the time so the police following this dead dude were from the anti terror unit and other special units .

Which is likely what the jealous cop would say after blasting his girlfriends' lover.

They are trying to prevent people from blowing themselves up along with a train .

Ahh, so I get it, "shoot first, ask questions later," eh? Now you're talking John Wayne style, way to go.

You of course would rather wait until he blows himself up thus proving beyond a reasonable doubt that its ok to maybe shoot him in the head .

Thank you also for offering to put thoughts in my head, but I am perfectly capable of sharing my awareness without your (Or should I write "you're" so's you can understand?) finger pointing. What I would rather see is a de-escalation of the violence, use tasers, close the subways, use x-ray machines, God forbid the West should change it's global policy... we are supposed to be an advanced society, and we are beginning to behave like the animals of the savannah where only the strong survive.

( it could be a government conspiracy that hid a bomb on him when he was sleeping without his knowlage and was triggered by the secret society of gumby lovers to make it look like he was a terrorist) .

Alleged bomb; last time I heard, the shooting was "directly tied to the investigation of the bombing." They didn't even have to say he was a major suspect, just that somehow the shooting was part of the investigation; "hyped-up, anxious, trigger happy cops shooting an unarmed man" can even qualify for that; and I have heard no mention that he had a bomb.

Is it not hot walking around with that tin foil hat all the time ?

Why on Earth would I wear a "foil hat"? Whatever reason, it is probably cooler out here in the breeze than it is in a hole in the sand.

 

[smellysocks12]

I just heard on the radio that the guy who was shot in London yesterday had nothing to do with the attacks. He ran away because he saw police officers in civilian clothes run at him with drawn weapons, so obviously he couldn't tell whether it was police. He thought he was going to get mugged, fled and ended up with 6 bullets in his face. Sad ****.


So don't go jogging in London metro stations wearing a backpack.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Did you ever stop to wonder why the London Police were "proudly" unarmed? Nevermind, that little bit of progressive socialisim is now an anachronisim.
Which is likely what the jealous cop would say after blasting his girlfriends' lover.Ahh, so I get it, "shoot first, ask questions later," eh? Now you're talking John Wayne style, way to go.

The police are unarmed in the UK, its quite amazing since a lot of the criminals have guns. Also,the police have only recently started to wear stab vests as standard issue, I think it was made compulsary after an officer was killed serving a warrant in a suspects home.

However, our armed response units are expertly trained and skilled marksman. They usually only need to fire a single shot to down a man. Normally they don't shoot to kill, when they really mean business they will fire two shots, in a tap tap style, chest (to line them up) then head.
Witnesses reported five very rapid shots, this would imply that two or three marksmen opened fire on the same target, this is unusual, they shot to kill this man, not just down him. The detectives involved were highly trained special ops, this would not have been a rash decision.

You say shoot first ask questions later, well I believe the warning was
"Armed police Stop", then "Stop or we will shoot", "Armed police, lie down or we will fire" and finally "Everyone get down, armed police, weapons firing"
...not the exact words but the police had time to warn the public to get out of the way...
did you think that they should have asked the man why he wouldn't stop, and maybe his date of birth as well...
If you run from a armed guard anywhere, expect them to shoot!

A while ago during some IRA attacks, my friend worked as a welder in a MOD site. He was late for work and was stopped at the gate to have his car searched, he said, can I just nip inside and clock in while you look at my car. The soldier on the gate said, "if you run from your car I will have to shoot you, sorry, but they are my orders"

Why on Earth would I wear a "foil hat"? Whatever reason, it is probably cooler out here in the breeze than it is in a hole in the sand.

I'm guessing it's something to do with that conspiracy thing about all the satellites and stuff recording your data and trying to alter your mind...The foil hat is meant to prevent it

Edit:

He ran away because he saw police officers in civilian clothes run at him with drawn weapons, so obviously he couldn't tell whether it was police. He thought he was going to get mugged, fled and ended up with 6 bullets in his face. Sad ****.

Where did you read that, he pushed his way through about fifty people as he zig zagged up the platform. Most people get mugged on their lonesome, why didn't he ask anyone there for help. All the witnesses knew that they were police.

Yes it turns out he was not connected with the bombings, but he was followed from a flat that was under surveillance in connection, maybe he was planning the next bombing...
How did they ask a dead man why didn't he stop, the thing about him not realising they were police must be third hand guesswork

 

[sukerkin]

I just heard on the radio that the guy who was shot in London yesterday had nothing to do with the attacks. He ran away because he saw police officers in civilian clothes run at him with drawn weapons, so obviously he couldn't tell whether it was police. He thought he was going to get mugged, fled and ended up with 6 bullets in his face. Sad ****.


So don't go jogging in London metro stations wearing a backpack.

Hi Mr. Socks

I don't know you well enough to decide if this is just bait in the water or not.

Either way,I'd be interested in hiring your Spiritualist Medium who is capable of determining the motivations of dead terrorists. Pretty good.

About all the 'rising' to your words I'll do is to say that passing on blatant disinformation about a serious subject is not helpful; so no more unsubstantiated quotes from theorising radio-station 'talking heads' would be a good thing.

 

[smellysocks12]

Hi Mr. Socks

I don't know you well enough to decide if this is just bait in the water or not.

Either way,I'd be interested in hiring your Spiritualist Medium who is capable of determining the motivations of dead terrorists. Pretty good.

About all the 'rising' to your words I'll do is to say that passing on blatant disinformation about a serious subject is not helpful; so no more unsubstantiated quotes from theorising radio-station 'talking heads' would be a good thing.

Look, if someone has school books or sports clothes in his backpack it is pretty safe to assume that he is NOT a terrorist.


HERE is your spiritualist medium. I am not passing on blatant disinformation so shut your hole if you obviously didn't even search for information about this serious topic.

That radio-station 'talking heads' I was listening to was the press conference. Up yours, smartass.

 

[smellysocks12]

Shot man not connected to bombing
Stockwell Tube station
Police cordoned off a 200-metre area around the station
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.

The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.

Two other men have been arrested and are being questioned after bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus.

The statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.


Failed bombing suspects

Good response to CCTV plea
'They unloaded five bullets'

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The statement confirmed the man was followed by police from a house in Tulse Hill that was under surveillance.

His death is being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Arrests

Two men are still being held at Paddington Green police station, central London, in connection with Thursday's attacks.

The first man was arrested at around 1630 BST on Friday during a raid on a block of flats near to Oval and Stockwell Tube stations.

Eyewitnesses said he was led away with a woman and child.

The second man was arrested late on Friday night, also in the Stockwell area.

Both are being held under anti-terrorism legislation which gives police 14 days before they have to bring charges.

CCTV images

Scotland Yard said they had been contacted by over 500 members of the public following the release of CCTV footage of four suspects.

Detectives said they were hopeful of useful lines of inquiry coming from the calls and e-mails.

Three devices found after the failed bombings were the same size and weight as those used in the suicide attacks of 7 July, which killed scores.

The fourth was smaller, apparently contained in a plastic box. The same chemicals appear to have been used.

They targeted Oval, Warren Street and Shepherd's Bush stations and a bus in Hackney.

The Hammersmith and City line train was removed from Shepherd's Bush station on Saturday afternoon.

Transport for London said it hoped to have trains running on the line from Paddington to Hammersmith on Saturday evening.

Another medium.