The cold-blooded, apparently racist murder, of a young Asian man today by undercover police/security agents is outrageous & a frightening development and a dark day for civil rights & democracy in Britain.
One has to wonder how much longer it will be before we suffer the ignominy of Nazi-style concentration camps (such as Guantanomo Bay) on British shores. Could 2nd World War-style internment be on the cards for British Muslims in the near future?
BBC News (see below) are reporting there is considerable evidence to indicate that the widespread initial general assumptions that the people who shot the man were police officers don’t really reflect the nature of the assault on the man. It seems clear that given their actions and their operational behaviour they are highly unlikely to have been police officers, but in fact be operatives from an entirely different, hitherto unknown agency.
Not that it makes what went on right, but if the footnote on the front page news story of The Sunday Telegraph (July 17th, 2005) is anything to go by, then it would seem clear that they probably belonged to a new, secret and little-known organisation known as the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, which, to quote The Telegraph “work[s] closely with MI5....[and] has [recently] been deployed on Britains streets".
From BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm
Will police now shoot to kill?
A Muslim group has said it is concerned there is a new police "shoot to kill" policy in the UK following the shooting dead of a man in south London.
The Muslim Council of Britain said it was getting calls from Muslims who were "distressed" about the incident at Stockwell Tube station.
Roy Ramm, former Met Police specialist operations commander, said the rules for confronting potential suicide bombers had recently changed to "shoot to kill".
One terrorism expert said if the shooting was carried out by police - rather than special forces - it would represent a "pretty big departure" for the UK force.
Professor Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King's College London, said the officers who carried out the operation in south London were unlikely to be police.
'Head shot'
"These guys may have been some sort of plain clothes special forces," he said.
"To have bullets pumped into him like this suggests quite a lot about him and what the authorities, whoever they are, assumed about him.
"The fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him."
He added: "You don't shoot somebody five times if you think you might have made a mistake and may be able to arrest him."
Prof Clarke said police officers were not trained to carry out operations in this way.
"Even Special Branch and SO19 (Scotland Yard's armed unit) are not trained to do this sort of thing.
"It's plausible that they were special forces or elements of special forces."
Mr Ramm said the danger of shooting a suspected suicide bomber in the body was that it could detonate a bomb they were carrying on them.
"The fact is that when you're dealing with suicide bombers they only way you can stop them effectively - and protect yourself - is to try for a head-shot," he said.
Former government intelligence analyst Crispin Black agreed there was no other way of stopping someone who was an "immediate threat to life".
Muslims 'jumpy'
"It implies that the police knew who he was, it also implies that they considered him an immediate threat to life, under which circumstances they must try and kill somebody...you must shoot to kill."
But MCB has urged the police to explain why the man - said to be of Asian appearance - was shot dead.
Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said Muslims he had spoken to this morning were "jumpy and nervous".
"I have just had one phone call saying, 'what if I was carrying a rucksack?'.
"There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear," he said.
"We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot to kill policy."
BBC News (see below) are reporting there is considerable evidence to indicate that the widespread initial general assumptions that the people who shot the man were police officers don’t really reflect the nature of the assault on the man. It seems clear that given their actions and their operational behaviour they are highly unlikely to have been police officers, but in fact be operatives from an entirely different, hitherto unknown agency.
Not that it makes what went on right, but if the footnote on the front page news story of The Sunday Telegraph (July 17th, 2005) is anything to go by, then it would seem clear that they probably belonged to a new, secret and little-known organisation known as the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, which, to quote The Telegraph “work[s] closely with MI5....[and] has [recently] been deployed on Britains streets".
From BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm Will police now shoot to kill?
A Muslim group has said it is concerned there is a new police "shoot to kill" policy in the UK following the shooting dead of a man in south London.
The Muslim Council of Britain said it was getting calls from Muslims who were "distressed" about the incident at Stockwell Tube station.
Roy Ramm, former Met Police specialist operations commander, said the rules for confronting potential suicide bombers had recently changed to "shoot to kill".
One terrorism expert said if the shooting was carried out by police - rather than special forces - it would represent a "pretty big departure" for the UK force.
Professor Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King's College London, said the officers who carried out the operation in south London were unlikely to be police.
'Head shot'
"These guys may have been some sort of plain clothes special forces," he said.
"To have bullets pumped into him like this suggests quite a lot about him and what the authorities, whoever they are, assumed about him.
"The fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him."
He added: "You don't shoot somebody five times if you think you might have made a mistake and may be able to arrest him."
Prof Clarke said police officers were not trained to carry out operations in this way.
"Even Special Branch and SO19 (Scotland Yard's armed unit) are not trained to do this sort of thing.
"It's plausible that they were special forces or elements of special forces."
Mr Ramm said the danger of shooting a suspected suicide bomber in the body was that it could detonate a bomb they were carrying on them.
"The fact is that when you're dealing with suicide bombers they only way you can stop them effectively - and protect yourself - is to try for a head-shot," he said.
Former government intelligence analyst Crispin Black agreed there was no other way of stopping someone who was an "immediate threat to life".
Muslims 'jumpy'
"It implies that the police knew who he was, it also implies that they considered him an immediate threat to life, under which circumstances they must try and kill somebody...you must shoot to kill."
But MCB has urged the police to explain why the man - said to be of Asian appearance - was shot dead.
Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said Muslims he had spoken to this morning were "jumpy and nervous".
"I have just had one phone call saying, 'what if I was carrying a rucksack?'.
"There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear," he said.
"We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot to kill policy."
Comments
Hide the following 45 comments
Video Clip, Met Police Chief claims shooters were Metropolitan Police Officers
22.07.2005 22:59
So far from being pursued by police and refusing to obey reasonable, legitimate or legal police orders (like lie down quietly in the gutter and allow us to shoot you!) it would appear that the shot man (from his own point of view) was simply being pursued by a number of armed men on the underground who subsequently caught up with him, attacked him and then shot him stone dead.
Who exactly is guilty of "terrorism" NOW, when Asian men can not travel on the underground (or even visit the gates of Downing Street wearing a rucksack) without being pursued by uniformed or undercover armed police?
While I was on jury duty a number of years ago, the judge was at pains to remind us that "if pursued, it is every British citizens God-given right to run away from Her Majesty's Constabulary should they so wish". If this applies if they are police officers (it is certainly not a criminal offence - at least not yet - to run away from the police!) , it certainly applies if the individuals concerned are blood-thirsty armed thugs intent on killing, as the murderers of this poor young Asian man - God rest his soul - clearly appear to have been.
.
more loonies
23.07.2005 00:24
I think you'll find not all police officers wear uniforms to do their work, and that Sir Ian Blair actually said that warnings were given to this man who chose to ignore them. At a time of high threat you don't ignore directions given to you. From what I've read and seen in the media this man was clearly a dangerous individual, why else would they have pursued him and had to shoot? Oh yeah, I forgot, in your world police officers get off on shooting people? Of course! Far more plausible for police officers to be getting off on shooting Asian people than for a terrorist organisation that has already killed thousands, has already vowed attacks, has already attacked the tube system, etc, to be responsible. Yes in the topsy turvy world of some people on this site the REAL baddies are the police, not Al Qaeda, who are presumably just victims of some huge Islamophobic conspiracy designed to bismirch the honourable reputation of Mr O Bin Laden.
An eyewitness was quoted on the BBC site as saying the suspect had wires under his jacket, which was bulky and he was wearing it on a sunny day temp around 22 celcius. As for standing outside Downing Street, with a rucksack, the day after 4 other guys with rucksacks tried to waste a thousands of people, in the middle of a security alert, and ignoring the police orders and being a stupid twat.. Well he deserved a slap to be honest and most reasonable people would agree. Don't you get it, there is a risk of further attacks, by people who DONT CARE ABOUT DYING, and want to kill as many civilians as possible, now is not the time for people to be irresponsible.
As for a "God given right to run away from HM Constabulary", that Judge needs to read up on the law a little more. There is NO God given right to run away, ever heard of "failing to stop"? Thats what happens when you don't pull over when being pursued, it is an offence. Added to which the police have a duty to protect life and limb, running away (into the tube) from armed officers and ignoring their requests the day after attempted suicide attacks on the tube is either utterly stupid or utterly dangerous.
canteenculture
Where's the CCTV footage of this murder?
23.07.2005 00:28
So many conflicting 'eye witness' reports. One person claimed to see a bomb belt and wires which is strange because nothing was found on the man after he was killed. Another person claimed he leapt onto the train and attempted to take a hostage which is also strange because no witness has yet claimed to be the person grabed by the murdered man. Other witnesses say that the man was triped/pushed to the floor, held down then shot five times, which is strange because that sounds like cold-blooded murder.
big brother
Not so black and white
23.07.2005 01:39
Andrew
Listen Copper, listen Fascist
23.07.2005 02:38
Why don't you fuck off to a police state like Pakistan, Saudi or Egypt, if you want a society with 'shoot to kill' as normal? You can torture potential terrorists all you like there.
But remember, OUR country is a democracy. And we are going to keep it that way.
A democracy which we the people have fought for since Cromwell and the English Civil war, since the Chartists and suffragets, since the fight against Hitler, since the great 1984/85 miners strike and then the criminal justice act. And always against coppers like you and their f*kin racist slime canteen culture.
And we are not going to let Al Quaida, the BNP, the Met or the Spooks reduce our democracy. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Listen copper, listen Fascist: There are far larger forces waiting in the wings here. Don't mess. Be sensible lads, ok?
THE REDZ
The devil is in the detail
23.07.2005 06:50
Was he carrying a bomb? If so, I imagine it will simply be congratulations all round for the policeman / soldier or whatever concerned.
Whether or not he was simply wearing a bulky jacket, did he appear to be trying to detonate a device after he'd been held down or was he just struggling?
If the former, then there's a very strong argument about stopping him by the most direct means. Holding the gun to his head reduced the risk of stray bullets on a crowded train.
If the latter, then it would have been immensely useful to the police to have a live bomber to interrogate.
I'd agree that generally, if an armed man tells you to stop, it would be sensible to do so even if you're not sure that he's a police officer.
Mr Smith
Police Death Squads.
23.07.2005 07:22
A. Palled
Trust !
23.07.2005 07:40
As for any Muslims concerned about the STK policy, I suggest they don't ignore police warnings, run away, wearing bulky jackets given recent results - seems easy enough.
As for nothing being found on the guy afterwards - no this doesn't bother me either. I don't expect our police to have to risk their own lives or those of others by politely requsting potential suicide bombers to remove their jackets so they may inspect the bomb before they decide whether to shoot. It is enough that repeated warnings were given, not only did the guy not stop, but he tried to evade the police. If I am an innocent guy wandering around London, suddenly accosted by several armed officers waving hand guns at me and shouting, do I (a) freeze on the spot or (b) run like a fool Hmmmmm?
However, for some people I guess conspiracy theories are more fun, the Zapruder footage clearly shows ..............................boring (continued p94)
Tina Cat V
Hey!
23.07.2005 08:25
The guy with the chair leg was shot by the normal armed response unit - wrongly, clearly, but not some sort of roving Nazi death squad. And the terrorists on Gib - it was never denied by the IRA that they were going to plant a bomb, but they were taken out early and unarmed (oops) - was the SAS.
Still, why let the facts get in the way of a go at the Police, eh?
Boab
MET refuses to deny or confirm that gun slingers were cops
23.07.2005 08:28
responsible for gunning down the man at Stockwell Tube were police officers or not.
So maybe the cops don't have a shoot to kill policy but we now have para military death squads carrying out
revenge killings on the streets of London.
pacifista
A response to some comments made by 'canteenculture'
23.07.2005 08:58
That's as may be. We've only got his word - for what that's worth - to go on. At the end of the day any Tom, Dick & Harry can shout orders to you to "get down". Are we suggesting that because the folk doing so are armed to the teeth then we should simply ASSUME they are police officers, lay down in the dirt and obediantly let them kill us? It is clear from the witness accounts this man was running for his life. If these men were police officers and they felt they had legal grounds for pursuing this man, then the onus was on them to calmly and rationally explain that to the man, showing legitimate identification/credentials that could be verified independently as to who they were and what they were about.
It is clear that they appear not to have had the slightest interest in doing that and choose to "shoot first, ask questions later". Did the man actually speak English? Was he deaf or hard of hearing? Did he have a learning difficulty or other handicap? Did he actually understand what "get down" meant? And, IF it was actually stated in the first place, what the words "we are armed police officers" meant? This man - in survival mode - choose to follow a similar code to the police, and "RUN first, ask questions later". I am sure that in a similar situation most of the general public - unarmed as we are - would instinctively behave as this man did and simply run for our lives. Faced with a bunch of heavily armed men intent on killing, it is perfectly understandable that most people wouldn't hang about waiting to interrogate them about whether they were police officers or not, what right they had to chase after British citizens with guns and "where was their identification".
Whether he knew they were police officers or not, this man clearly judged that these were potentially his last few moments on earth, his brain in primeval survival mode - the so-called "flight response". His gut reactions clearly told him that - whoever the armed men were - they were not outreach workers inviting him for a cosy chat and a bun in the local cafe! Nor - as was subsequently shown - were they in the least bit interested in arresting him. They did not want him "dead or alive". They simply and unequivocally wanted him DEAD.
The witnesses we have heard from so far all seem unanimous in stating or alluding to the fact that they ASSUMED the men with guns were undercover police officers. From the moment "the incident" began at the station entrance, right up to the point he tripped, was subsequently pushed to the ground and then shot five times in the head, NO ONE reports hearing at any point any of the armed men identify themselves as police officers.
That's because they probably made no such identification, and in fact probably weren't police officers anyway. Unless SO19 have been given legal sanction to operate as undercover officers, then it seems highly likely that, as Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King's College London states in his BBC interview:
"These guys may have been some sort of plain clothes special forces. Even Special Branch and SO19 (Scotland Yard's armed unit) are not trained to do this sort of thing. It's plausible that they were special forces or elements of special forces."
(2) "From what I've read and seen in the media this man was clearly a dangerous individual"
Not sure what media you may have been reading and looking at. The BNP Daily? The Fascists Gazzette? A dangerous individual that wasn't armed, hadn't actually harmed or injured anyone, and to quote one man "looked like a cornered fox". Within the past couple of years Parliament has taken the brave step and banned fox hunting. In our civil rights and democracy eroding times, there are some stickers going around that read "protect the human". Perhaps Parliament might rather urgently like to consider protecting us humans a little from an increasingly oppressive and dictatorial police state & army? Clearly, as is being increasingly and consistently demonstrated, our police and security forces are increasingly a lot unto themselves, whether it comes to shooting men carrying table legs on London streets (as in the Harry Stanley case), torture and war crimes on the street of Iraq, victimising anyone in London that looks foreign or shooting unarmed and defenceless Asian youths on the underground.
(3) "An eyewitness was quoted on the BBC site as saying the suspect had wires under his jacket, which was bulky and he was wearing it on a sunny day temp around 22 celcius."
Can you post a link to this report from this alleged eyewitness? Where exactly is it on the BBC site? Perhaps you are confusing this shooting with Thursdays reports that claimed that an individual was spotted running FROM an underground station into the grounds of University College London with "wires protruding from under his shirt". THIS incident that THIS topic is about - where unidentified police/army/security agents shot an Asian man dead on the underground - occurred on FRIDAY and there are no reports, claims or comments anywhere that I can find that this defenceless Asian man had "wires under HIS jacket". [Not that having wires or any other personal property under your jacket should entitle anyone to shoot you in cold blood anyway!]
(4) "As for standing outside Downing Street, with a rucksack, the day after 4 other guys with rucksacks tried to waste a thousands of people, in the middle of a security alert, and ignoring the police orders and being a stupid twat.. Well he deserved a slap to be honest and most reasonable people would agree."
The man didn't ignore police orders. He was surrounded on the ground by armed police officers (wearing uniforms!) and by snipers on the overhanging rooftops overlooking Downing Street and Whitehall. He was filmed and photographed on LIVE TV being arrested and hand-cuffed and led away, and as has been little reported, SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE. What had the man done to be treated in such a fashion? Doing what thousands of tourists do each day and flocking to gawp at that bastion of autocracy, No 10 Downing Street. Where is the crime in that? If there was a security alert on, why were THE POLICE being stupid twats and allowing the general public to congregate at Downing Street's gates? Most people would not agree that the man “deserved a slap” although it is clear many police officers out there will hold such a racist and criminal viewpoint, given the widespread extent to which British people continue to be often seriously assaulted while in police custody.
What the man's real crime was (as far as our institutionally racist police force seem to be concerned) was to be brown-skinned and standing in that particular place and time carrying a ruck-sack on his back. I expect there were dozens of people around there that afternoon doing the same. The majority of them will have been white however, and therefore quite immune from the sort of over-the-top, racist police behaviour that we saw ultimately escalate into the callous and pre-meditated shooting of an unarmed and defenceless Asian man on the London Underground yesterday.
The family of Harry Stanley, the Irish man murdered in a similar cavalier fashion a few years ago by the police have waited years for the guilty officers to be brought to justice. There needs to be an urgent and independent public inquiry into this mans murder IMMEDIATELY. These officers, and the one who fired the gun in particular, need to be suspended and brought to justice without undue delay.
.
I'm not a historian but...
23.07.2005 09:08
I think you need to do some research into old Olly before you start singing his praises. He was a total c**t!
Blimey, you define this system as "democracy" and you post on IM. Did you get lost on your way to the Daily Mail site???
magoo
Re: Listen Copper, listen Fascist
23.07.2005 09:27
Yeah? You and who's army?
Indy has really become an "alternative" site...an "alternative comedy" site...!
artaud
cops or not?
23.07.2005 10:35
Bit strange, seeing as the Met website says:
"We can confirm that at just after 10am this morning, Friday 22 July, armed officers from the Metropolitan Police entered Stockwell tube station in south London.A man was challenged by officers and was subsequently shot."
Tina Cat V: "I actually trust the police to deal with this"
Okay - and I don't. I think you'll find that theres plenty of evidence that shows it is rational to adopt a position of distrust...........
Tina Cat V: "As for any Muslims concerned about the STK policy, I suggest they don't ignore police warnings, run away, wearing bulky jackets given recent results - seems easy enough."
And that would apply to Sikhs, buddhists, anarchists, christians and anyone else who has an appearance of being Asian, Arab or black. Yes or no?
In fact, you are advocating blind obedience to authority. Yes or no?
BRB
Too crap for Channel 5
23.07.2005 11:45
No it's common sense, and most people don't have to be told when there is a gun pointing at them.
You are harping on as though this is some crappy LeCarre novel when someone was silence to spare the government embarressment. On the basis of what???
I am *potentially* supporting them on the basis that they guy was probably credibly deemed to be a threat. And circumstancially, and given witness testimonies, I SUSPECT that no-one in the chain of command will question the judgement call.
Why does this guy have to be some stooge? Why does there have to be a JFK-style conspiracy. It may surprise you to know I do think there is a conspiracy at play regarding TWAT (the war against terrorISM). But it's nothing as moronic as Aled Jones & infotosh are flogging for personal gain. It's dead simple. It's called poking a hornet's nest. The US have been at it for decades in the Middle East. They don't NEED to get involved in the dirty work, they know already that there are thousands of people they have agrieved that are literally queueing up to have a pop at the West.
We are targets because Blair bullied and brided and lied to enough MPs to drag us undemocratically into a pointless war. Everyone at the time knew Blair was a liar but he preceded anyway. Has he been brought to account given all the evidence that those evil spooks, pigs and squaddies have leaked? No. People like you are too bloody busy running around with your tinfoil hats on!
So, yeah we have a conspiracy and yeah we are being lied to. But neither remotely in the way you suggest. But to say that we (as a state) are actively involved in attacking ourselves and all these coppers, agents and squaddies are too evil or too stupid to spot it, is just too crap... even for Steven Seagal.
magoo
Kratos...
23.07.2005 12:01
Police are preparing specific shoot-to-kill orders to combat suicide bombers. Marksmen will be told to aim for the head rather than the body. This is because a shot to the head causes the muscles to go limp and could prevent the bomber detonating his device. Shooting at the chest could set off an explosives-packed vest.
It is part of a pre-planned response to suicide bombers drafted last year which is named Operation Kratos and draws on Israeli experience
---------------------------------------------------------
Olympian gods :
The brothers KRATOS and ZELOS and the sisters NIKE and BIA were the personifications of Strength and Rivalry, Victory and Force. These four winged gods stood beside the throne of Zeus.
KratoV - Bia Bih - ZhloV = Strength Force / Violence Emulation / Rivalry
- theoi.com
---------------------------------------------------------
New Special Forces Regiment for the British Army
Published Tuesday 5th April 2005
The SRR cap badge consists of a Corinthian helmet placed in front of a Special Forces sword with a scroll underneath depicting the word 'reconnaissance'. This reflects the SAS and SBS cap badges in design, ensuring conformity within the UK Special Forces Group. The Corinthian style helmet, favoured by the ancient Greeks, was used from the early 7th to the 4th centuries BC. The helmet is facing forwards and suggests the viewer is being watched, while the wearer behind the mask is anonymous.
On 5 April 2005 the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon MP, announced the creation of a new "Special Reconnaissance Regiment", which has been formed to meet a growing worldwide need for special reconnaissance capability.
In a written statement to Parliament, Mr Hoon declared the 'Special Reconnaissance Regiment' (SRR) will be operational from April 6th 2005. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said:
"The creation of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment demonstrates our commitment to shaping our Armed Forces to meet the ongoing challenge of tackling international terrorism. The new Regiment will help to meet the growing need for special reconnaissance capability."
The new Regiment has been formed to meet a growing worldwide demand for special reconnaissance capability - as announced in the Strategic Defence Review New Chapter in July 2004.
The Regiment will ensure improved support to international expeditionary operations at a time when it is most needed in the ongoing fight against international terrorism. Special reconnaissance covers a wide range of specialist skills and activities related to covert surveillance.
The SRR will draw personnel from existing capabilities and recruit new volunteers from serving members of the Armed Forces where necessary. Due to the specialist nature of the unit it will come under the command of Director Special Forces and be a part of the UK Special Forces group.
In a Written Ministerial Statement to the House of Commons, Mr Hoon said:
"The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) New Chapter published in July 2002 stated that we planned to enhance and build upon the capabilities of UK Special Forces. As part of this programme, the 'Special Reconnaissance Regiment' (SRR) will stand up on April 6 2005. This regiment has been formed to meet a growing worldwide demand for special reconnaissance capability. Consistent with the SDR New Chapter, this regiment will provide improved support to expeditionary operations overseas and form part of the Defence contribution to the Government's comprehensive strategy to counter international terrorism. The SRR will bring together personnel from existing capabilities and become the means of the further development of the capability. Due to the specialist nature of the unit, it will come under the command of the Director Special Forces and be a part of the UK Special Forces group."
Delivering Security in a Changing World: Defence Command Paper 2004
---------------------------------------------------------
paul c
Arturd
23.07.2005 12:01
Stop Posting you bullshit ArTURD!
Stop Posting you bullshit ArTURD!
Stop Posting you bullshit ArTURD!
Stop Posting you bullshit ArTURD!
Stop Posting you bullshit ArTURD!
Stop Posting you bullshit ArTURD!
Stop Posting you bullshit ArTURD!
Stop Posting you bullshit ArTURD!
Even Paranoid Prat, MagWho and Wee Willy Winky can't be arsed with you're panting small dog support.
A. Lexicon
Special Reconnaissance Regiment
23.07.2005 12:14
Special forces regiment created
BLITZ ON THE BRITS: TOP TEAM JOIN HUNT
Politie in Londen executeert man.
" The newly-created Special Reconnaissance Regiment will work closely with MI5. "
Guido
e-mail:
Guido@stopimperialism.be
Homepage:
http://stopimperialism.be
United we stand, divided we fall; we must unite in solidarity & strive for peace
23.07.2005 13:06
The issue here is why he was shot in the way that he was, and indeed why in recent weeks hundreds of innocent British citizens have found themselves being victimised, searched, and sometimes surrounded by armed police.
The answer is simple. It's simply because they are black, Asian or of mixed race appearance.
All of a sudden, since the bombings, the British authorities have become a lot more trigger happy, and thrown racial discrimination laws and the advances and precedents set in motion by The Stephen Lawrence Report out of the window.
That is patently wrong, illegal, undemocratic and an abuse of Human Rights.
The authorities have done this a lot faster and with greater efficacy than they ever did during the IRA bomb campaigns in London. I may be wrong in this supposition, but I do not belief that Irish people in London were ever victimised so rapidly and widely as blacks and Asians are being at the moment.
So what, the alleged bombers on the 7th July and 21st July happened to have been black or of an Asian background.
Does that entitle British police to stoke the fires and fan flames of fear into every muslim, black & asian heart, soul and spirit by the example they have shown recently?
Let us not forget that the driver of the TUBE TRAIN the man was shot on, was also subsequently chased by armed police and indeed even had a gun held to his head, as he ran away with the other passengers from the scene, as they were PERSONALLY requested to do by the plain clothes officers. As a result, tube drivers are even more fearful and talking about possible strike action.
Although the media have neglected to mention the tube drivers ethnicity, you can bottom your bottom dollar the guy wasn't white. So now if your black or Asian and are seen running or carry a rucksack on the underground you risk getting your head blown off and being put down like a rabid dog by trigger-happy police. But not if your white. What is happening is setting dangerous precedents. The creep-creep-creep of erosion of human rights and democracy in Britain is well and truly on the march. To have such a racially discriminatory state of affairs in existence on the streets of London is horrific and obscene in the extreme.
I never thought I would see the day, when the multi-cultural embers of enmity and disunity would grow to flames of hatred, discrimination and state-sponsored oppression so quickly.
To counteract this we must unite in solidarity, Christian and Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu, Atheist and Agnostic, Pagan and Quaker, and condemn the current state actions (and inaction) and continue to campaign for the resignation and impeachment of our dictatorially corrupt war-mongers who are leading us slowly but surely into potential Armageddon.
It is more important now than ever before, to unite spiritually in thought and prayer, and engage on a practical level in both our own communities and within the greater world-stage to help return our great nations and all of humanity onto a blissful, glorious and Utopian path of peace.
.
Who the hell does A Lexicon think he is?
23.07.2005 13:30
I take it recent events with the second wave of failed terrorist attacks has done nothing to dent your long pre-determined assessment of who is too blame, no doubt these attempted bombers (clearly seen by numerous witnesses) were just another set of patsies. The fact that there are numerous people with grudges against the UK due to their government's actions in the middle east is just too obvious and logical a motive for you to endorse isn't it. You portray anyone who accepts the official view as a 'sheep', although you seem to have very low standards when it comes to defining credible, undisputable evidence otherwise you would not be spouting such shite about the colleapse of the two towers on other threads.
It is you, if anyone, who are the credulous one mate, with a view of the state so simplistic and paranoid it scarcely warrants the term 'theory'. I am surprised you have not blamed the Knights Templar for recent events, after all they are good conspiracy theory fodder.
Long Time Reader
What about...?
23.07.2005 13:35
You've just scored a bag of weed. You're on your way to the tube, heading home for a quiet smoke. Next thing you know, 'Stop! Armed Police!' (if the warning given stated that they were police).
If it was me, I'd probably go for a bit of jog, try and dump my stash. Do I deserve to be shot then? For a bag of weed?
Oh yeah, and I had my walkman on, the headphone cable dangling just below my belt.
Con Fused
same as it ever was...
23.07.2005 13:45
related to those shadowy units who set up and let the Omagh bombing happen?
the same groups that shot innocents and used far-right paramilitary loyalists to
do their dirty work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Force Research Unit (FRU)
synonyms: Force Reaction Unit (FRU)
Force Research Unit (FRU) was a special unit of Military (Army) Intelligence that was probably set up during 1979. FRU was a highly secret unit which sought to identify and recruit members of Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups who could be persuaded to work as double agents on behalf of Military Intelligence. The existence of FRU only became public when Brian Nelson, then a British Army agent and an Ulster Defence Association (UDA) intelligence officer, pleaded guilty on 22 January 1992 to conspiracy to murder. This plea prevented any cross-examination of Nelson. Nelson was believed to have been involved in at least 15 killings, 15 attempted killings, and 62 conspiracies to kill, during the two years that he was handled by FRU (Taylor, 2001; p.294). Republicans claimed that FRU was one of the agencies that had been involved in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries. -
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRU were remnants of the DET [14th intelligence]
"The mind-set was one of 'the right people would be allowed to live and the wrong people should die'." Nelson was later jailed for his terrorist crimes and was subsequently released. He is currently in hiding in Germany. At least two other Scottish FRU soldiers and a Scots RUC officer were also Nelson's handlers.
According to the FRU source, there was an unbroken chain of command running from the handlers, to Kerr, then through to the military top brass in Ulster, on to the Ministry of Defence Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and finally the Prime Minister. At the time of Finucane's death George Younger was Secretary of State for Defence, Tom King was Ulster Secretary, Thatcher was Prime Minister and General Sir John Waters was the general officer commanding in Northern Ireland.
"It is rubbish to suggest that we were mavericks," the FRU source said.
"What was happening may have been occurring outside the law but the establishment knew what was happening." Kerr was known for his "gung-ho" aggressive style of executing the war against terrorism. Kerr learned the ropes of counter-insurgency as a member of 14th Intelligence. Also known as the Det, this SAS-run unit, was, until the creation of the FRU, Ulster's main counter-intelligence squad. He was a senior instructor with the Special Intelligence Wing between 1985-1986 and then moved to Ulster as FRU chief.
"He had no moral qualms about anything that we were up to," the FRU source said.
"And he knew of every decision taken by his men.
"At the time I had no qualms either. We saw what was happening as a war and we were going to fight fire with fire. Kerr had one policy; in his own words it was: "You go in, and you go in heavy. Raise the temperature on the ground to boiling point and then reduce it fast. That means you hurt your enemy so hard that you reduce the risk of casualties on your side. Then you step back quickly. That means the enemy is constantly in a state of terror and panic. It's an old SAS tactic."
- Neil Mackay
---------------------------------------------------------------
14 Intelligence Company
synonyms: 14 Intelligence and Security Company (14 ISC); 14 Int. and Sy; 'Det'
14 Intelligence Company was a special unit of the British Army. The unit was formed in 1973 (?) and its role was to provide surveillance in parts of Northern Ireland where regular British Army and police units had difficulty operating. Its members were known as 'operators' who were drawn from a number of intelligence agencies and the Special Air Service (SAS). 14 Intelligence Company operations were based on 'Detachments' ('Det') to each of the British Army's three Brigades in Northern Ireland. -
---------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the Army's most secret intelligence gathering organisations has been deployed on Britain's streets in an attempt to prevent further attacks. The newly-created Special Reconnaissance Regiment will work closely with MI5. "
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The Special Reconnaissance Regiment, or SRR, will provide specialist support for overseas operations, particularly those against international terrorism."
---------------------------------------------------------------
BLITZ ON THE BRITS: TOP TEAM JOIN HUNT
Jul 17 2005
A NEW top secret special forces unit is hunting the mastermind behind the London bombings.
It is the first major task given the Special Reconnaissance Regiment since it was formed three months ago from what used to be 14 Intelligence Company, a shadowy organisation which spied on IRA terrorists.
The SRR's highly-trained operatives will work closely with MI5 to establish who the bombers associated with and where they were recruited into al-Qaeda.
It will be part of a long-term probe designed to smash any other networks operating in Britain and prevent future attacks.
Last night an Army source said: "The regiment has been given a number of minor tasks in Iraq where they have been working with the SAS but this is its first major challenge."
---------------------------------------------------------------
thanks to guido for the links
i just wanted to re-contextualise them
the mirror is stating that the special unit is from 14th Intelligence
but
they became the FRU
so what we are seeing on the London streets
and elsewhere for all we know
is the same that the people of Northern ireland
have had to put up with for all these years
paul c
ArTURD
23.07.2005 13:48
artaud
Lexicon
23.07.2005 13:58
magoo
Who did shoot?
23.07.2005 14:02
“If police had been attempting to deal with this man they would have jumped on him and arrested him.
“Even Special Branch and SO19 (Scotland Yard’s armed unit) are not trained to do this sort of thing.
“It’s plausible that they (the officers) were special forces or elements of special forces.
“This was special forces-style behaviour, but it’s impossible to say at the moment whether these guys were or not.
“They could have been police but they were not adopting police tactics.”
Guido
e-mail:
Guido@stopimperialism.be
Homepage:
http://stopimperialism.be
A Lexicon is an anagram for 'Alien Cox'
23.07.2005 14:07
After all, someone who can't string together a few words for a Indymedia posting without resorting to foul language, probably can't organise himself out of bed in the morning, let alone organise a revolution!
Please Lexiiee GROW UP !
Please Lexiiee GROW UP !
Please Lexiiee GROW UP !
Please Lexiiee GROW UP !
Please Lexiiee GROW UP !
Please Lexiiee GROW UP !
Please Lexiiee GROW UP !
(Wow ! Cut and paste .........fantastic)
As for Mr Confused ...........answer = YES. If you're (a) stupid enough to mess with armed police with a bag full of weed, AND (b) you really think that the police are going to send an armed response team to arrest a dopehead AND (c) you're stupid enough to run from them, Definately YES! Face it, in the situation you describe, you look like a BIG THREAT, so I'd rather the police don't take chances..............and if they're wrong? Hey it's one less waster, drop-out for the state to fund.
Still to hook ? .....Yes!
Orcs !.........Nice one.
23.07.2005 14:29
Oh No ! Pauly C is back...........doesn't he just go on, and on, and on, and on, and on......................(continued Page 94)
You HAVE been doing your homework Pauly, don't stay up too late though!
>
All sounds like good stuff to me.
Rare Damsel
i''l take at least 3 with
23.07.2005 15:58
same old MO for psyops
someone needs to rewrite that manual you
boys & girls are still
using.....
hilarious
all of you are twenty something amatuers
look behind you......
paul c
Eh?
23.07.2005 16:41
Would you rather there be no armed police on patrol? Or no police in Britain at all? Without the cops who would stop suspected suicide bombers and hunt down terrorists? I know you wouldn’t.
Don't you think it makes sense for the cops to search asians and blacks more that whites due to the fact that the terrorists are Muslim and all the bombers have been either black or asian?
There is no secret police death squad. The asian man was DIRECTLY LINKED to Tuesdays bombings and had been under surveillance. He wasn't some random asian who was killed by a racist cops (words can't describe how far fetched that theory is). If he was innocent why didn't he just stop? I think its offensive you say 'God rest his soul.' Try saying that to the victims of 7/7's families. Do you think they would share your sympathy?
Support the police. They're doing a job to save your asses from further attacks. If we lived your views and ideas this country would be crippled in weeks.
M
Shot man not connected to bombing
23.07.2005 17:12
Guido
Delusional
23.07.2005 17:39
someone needs to rewrite that manual you boys & girls are still using.....hilarious
all of you are twenty something amatuers, look behind you......"
Let me get this straight - anyone who simply does not buy into the delusional shite which is commonly bandied around on this site as alleged evidence of government conspiracies and cover-ups and subsequently makes their opinions known on this matter online - is, in fact, not an ordinary citizen at all but a representative of MI5 or some even more shadowy government organisation (the Illuminati perhaps, or the Freemansons). Are you seriously suggesting this?
Long Time Reader
Then why?
23.07.2005 18:24
A) Shoot the man to prevent another bombing but run the risk of him being unarmed
B) Not shoot the man and try to arrest him, but he could have a bomb and kill us and the other people in the station.
I just don't understand why the guy didn't stop. He must have known they were armed police, and he must have known they would take no chances after four bombings and four attempted bombings.
Anyway, to those of you complaining about the situation, imagine you are one of the cops; you've been monitoring a flat that could be being used as a meeting place for Islamic terrorists. You see a guy come out and you go to arrest him, he runs off and heads for the underground, he’s got a thick coat on and bag that could contain a bomb. You shout for him to stop but he ignores you and runs onto a train. What would you do?
And you can't say the guy is innocent at this stage unless you know more than Scotland Yard. On sky news it said he had 'links' to one of the attempted bombers.
M
i like
23.07.2005 19:13
mutliple postings
under diffrent names
23.07.2005 19:15
TOO, Says
the alleged mr magoo
Re: Shot man not connected to bombing link
23.07.2005 20:48
Re: Shot man not connected to bombing link
This news is being reported on the online The Daily Telegraph site too.
I was particularly interested to read in the BBC report that
“John O'Connor, former commander of the Met Police, told the BBC the consequences of the shooting were likely to be "quite horrendous". He said he expected officers to face criminal charges, and other officers could even refuse to carry weapons.”
I would fully support these officers facing full criminal charges. Countless numbers out there feel the same way. The way they dealt with that man was bang out of order. It was a cold-blooded and mindless execution, plain and simple.
Latest news from The Daily Telegraph:
Shot man not linked to terror attacks (as originally claimed by Met Police Chief Sir Ian Bliar)
(Filed: 23/07/2005)
Scotland Yard have revealed that the man shot dead by police in south London on Friday is not connected to attempted terror attacks on the capital.
A spokesman said: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."
The fatal shooting happened in Stockwell at 10am when armed plain clothes police officers shot a man as he tried to board a train at the underground station.
He had emerged from a nearby house that was under surveillance because of a suspected link to Thursday's attempted bomb attacks on three Tube trains and a bus.
[Not any particularly concrete reason there then for using such deadly force against the man. The surveillance was actually on the house itself, not specifically on the man who emerged, who could have been entirely innocent, and in this case he was just that - an entirely innocent Brazilian man (according to the BBC) and one who in all likelihood may not have had exhaustive command of English, nor full familarity with this new British custom of setting heavily armed officers in plain clothes on the local citizenry simply because of the colour of their skin]
The man, whose name has not yet been released, was then followed by surveillance officers.
He is thought to have caught a bus to Stockwell Tube station where he was challenged by officers, who told him to stop.
He apparently tried to get on a train before he was, according to witnesses, shot five times in the head by an officer with an automatic pistol.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair had said that the shooting was "directly linked" to anti-terror operations.
However, in a statement, Scotland Yard have now said: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday, July 22, although he is still subject to formal identification.
"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday, July 21, 2005."
.
FORENSIC TESTS INDICATED THAT HE HAD NO EXPLOSIVES.”
23.07.2005 20:56
“There were several false alarms in London. In one incident, at the Canary Wharf development in east London, a man of Asian appearance with a rucksack was wrestled to the ground by plain-clothes detectives.”
[Muslims, Blacks, Asians and Hispanics all over London are experiencing the brunt of these so-called "false alarms". Further evidence in print (if it were needed) of the racist outrage we’re facing, indicating quite clearly that it is now apparently an arrestable offence (and a potentially summarily executable one at that) to be of Asian appearance and to be seen carrying a rucksack on the streets of London.]
“Several witnesses said he [the Asian man on the Tube train] was shot on the floor of the carriage by an officer who fired four or five rounds to the head. Security experts suggested that the severity of these tactics meant police were treating the man as a possible suicide bomber, perhaps wearing a bomb belt. FORENSIC TESTS INDICATED THAT HE HAD NO EXPLOSIVES.”
[THEN WHY WAS HE SHOT!? Handcuffing him, lifting his shirt and carrying a quick and simple pad-down would have quickly indicated THERE WERE NO explosives to the officer concerned. Who exactly were they protecting in shooting him? Passengers had more or less already fled the train. The officers had already ordered and elicited it's evacuation.]
.
Elite Scotland Yard CO19 Specialist Firearns Officers involved in Tube death
23.07.2005 21:01
Elite squad enters uncharted territory
By John Steele
(Filed: 23/07/2005)
The plain-clothes officers involved in yesterday's shooting were drawn from an elite squad attached to Scotland Yard's firearms unit, which has about 440 full-time members
Recently renamed CO (Central Operations) 19, the unit is the largest police firearms squad in Britain and has long been at the forefront in the fight against terrorism.
The men involved in the incident at Stockwell station are believed to be specialist firearms officers (SFOs) attached to CO19. They are the most highly trained officers and take part in operations against terrorists and armed criminals.
With the threat of suicide bombers on London's transport network, the unit is entering uncharted waters.
In normal circumstances, police would shout a warning, and Sir Ian Blair, the Met commissioner, yesterday said this was done at Stockwell, although witnesses said they did not hear it.
The police, unlike the Army, do not have ''rules of engagement'' that dictate how they should use force. Ultimate responsibility in law for pulling the trigger lies with the individual officer. In broad terms, reflecting human rights legislation, the force used by police must be proportionate to the threat.
But faced with suicide bombers, rules of engagement may now be required, including allowing officers to shoot to kill without warning.
The problem with shouting a warning is that it gives a terrorist an opportunity to detonate a bomb. On the other hand, shooting on sight risks killing someone who turns out not to have a bomb.
Police officers have traditionally been trained to fire to incapacitate and generally to aim at the torso. Such shots, though, may detonate an explosive device strapped to someone's chest.
If a suicide bomber is not killed instantly, he can still detonate his device. Repeated shots to the head, as appears to have been the case yesterday, would avoid the risk of a bomb being detonated.
As with all police shootings, there will be an inquiry into whether the killing represented a proportionate response. But in the new climate, the investigation will need to establish whether a new approach of the sort seen at Stockwell should be more commonplace.
[NO IT BLOODY WELL SHOULDN’T!!!]
.
Innocent Brazilian man illegally & barbarically executed by police now named
23.07.2005 22:09
.
Long Term Reader, He's our leader.
24.07.2005 00:23
Sorry artaud old boy, guess they didn't like my take on 'alternative' comedy, funny (peculiar), Alexi Sayle used to be quite popular for being abrasive, foul mouthed, insulting, arrogant and repetitive. He was an alternative comedian, my how times change. (or perhaps my 'post modern' impression of alternative comedy seemed far too genuine without a punchline?) middle-class? John? moi?
Seriously though, guys, I haven't had this much fun since I jumped amongst the pigeons outside a graveyard in Paris. Who wants to bet I can't do it again tomorrow? Or are you all still taking this newswire thing seriously?
Double the personalities, Double the fun! That's how we should advertise schizophrenia, you know, make it a lifestyle choice... like totalitarianism.
Of course I couldn't speak for you Magoo, I didn't make you up.
A. Lexicon
more posting in my name
24.07.2005 15:12
magoo
people dont
24.07.2005 17:11
they have open ended discussions
morons try to win debates by framing the concensus
ever heard of 'horizonal thinking'?
pc
some links
24.07.2005 17:29
Guido
not reported
24.07.2005 17:32
Omid Azizi, London"
Guido
pc
24.07.2005 18:25
magoo
Multiple Postings
24.07.2005 20:34
Long Time Reader