Shooting of innocent Brazilian in UK...

[savage]

I cannot believe and am appalled that UK citizens and I assume citizens from around world just accept that the killing of an innocent Brazilian is acceptable in this "war on terror".

Would everyone think it was ok if the police accidentally shot Tony
Blair's son just because he ran away from some plain clothes people
holding a gun, who claimed they were police? On top of this they had him
in custody, eye witnesses say he was held down by 2 officers, and another officer still shot him in the head and 4 more times. This is not the behaviour of a so called civilised nation. Where is the justice for this boy and his family? How can this possibly be seen as acceptable? Or is it just collateral damage? Would it be acceptable if I was the one who had been shot? Would any of you gladly sacrifice the life of your innocent daughter or son, for the great good of the "war on terror"?

This makes first world countries like the UK no better than a dictator
who uses hit squads to kill people suspected of things without proof.
"Shoot to kill" should not be used in so called civilised countries.
Proof is what civilised countries use to bring offenders to justice.
Proof is what is required, not bodies.

I am not a fan of circular emails, so instead I urge you to write to your local Member of Parliament so that these sort of things do not happen in your part of the world.

[cairnswm]

.. Deleted my other rant.

[savage]

Why? Aren't all of our countries supposed to be leaders in "free speech"? Or does South Africa also have an "anti incitement" law that actually stops anyone questioning the government's actions. The UK has such a law.

In the UK, you are not allowed to say that "if you invade another country this logically MAY cause people to become suicide bombers as they feel there is no other option left to them". By saying this, it apparently means you condone suicide bombing and is therefore incitement. "Free speech" indeed!

[tux]

from bbc...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41333000/gif/_41333933_stockwell_station_6inf416.gif

1: Jean Charles de Menezes leaves a house under surveillance and arrives at Stockwell station
2: Witnesses say he vaults the automatic ticket barriers and heads for the platforms
3: He then ran down an escalator after being approached by up to 20 plain-clothed police officers and tried to board a train
4: He apparently refuses to obey police instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead





he was questioned many times, he ignored. he then ran from armed police. so its his own fault. why run from armed police? and then WHY run onto a tube train the day after people tryed to blow them up???

suicide by police i think

[cairnswm]

Because I dont want to start a flaming thread in this normally peaceful environment. :)

When I was younger I never thought before saying things - it got me into trouble too often - I've now learnt (the hard way) that not everyone agrees with me :)

I live in a country that has a reputation for being crime ridden - we have almost 150 policemen killed each year. Even so I, do not believe that goverments should break laws to prevent crime. I believe that the behaviour of the US and British goverments crossed the line (refering to the war in Iraq and Afganistan). However I well understand that other people do not neccessarily agree with that sentiment.

(That was put a lot better than my initial rant :) )

[tux]

yes i agree with the iraq thing. but what if this person *was* a suicide bomber? if they didnt shoot him that would be another train blown up.

if they wanted to shoot him then they could have easily done it before he got to the train. but because he had a big puffy coat on (on a hot day) and ran towards a train they had no choice.

normal police dont have guns anyway

[cairnswm]

but what if this person *was* a suicide bomber

Police need to do their duty. By the sounds of it they did the right thing.

[tux]

but what if this person *was* a suicide bomber

Police need to do their duty. By the sounds of it they did the right thing.

then i dont understand why people are complaining :?

[savage]

but what if this person *was* a suicide bomber

Police need to do their duty. By the sounds of it they did the right thing.

I disagree for the following reasons.
I agree that the police need to do their duty, but it needs to be within the criminal justice system's guide lines. As if there are not enough innocent people dieing around the world, now we give the police a carte blanche to shoot anyone they suspect of being a terrorist. They do not need PROOF. They can just kill you and me and then say sorry when they get it wrong.

This is not acceptable. By giving the police a carte blanche to do what ever they like, we have changed our way of life by foregoing our civil liberties. And that basically means the real terrorist have WON!!! Read that again, the terrorist have WON because we have changed our way of life.

Also, they had the guy in custody. 2 officers held him down and another officer shot him in the head then shot him 4 more times. Also at the moment all we have is the police's word that they made their precence known. I would like to hear from other independent witness to see if this corroburate the police's story. It would not be the first time that the police have lied/bent the truth to cover their wrong doing.

If you have not read 1984 recently, I suggest you re-read it and see exactly how small changes, over a period of time basis, errode the very ideals our forefathers fought to uphold! As long as the root causes are not identified and dealt with, namely the US and it's allies occupation of Iraq and the the Middle East, then we can expect more suicide bombers and therefore more civil liberties will be curtailed in the name of our so called "way of life".

[tux]

but savage. you have to look at it in the eyes of the police...

the man ran away when confronted
the man was wearing a big coat in teh middle of summer
he ran onto a train (with his coat big enough to hide things in) the day after people attempted to blow them up


in my view, theres nothing else the police could have done. what would you say if the police just restrained him but he still managed to blow the train up? is that a better outcome for you? many more commuters dead instead of 1 suspected bomber

[savage]

Here is some more information about the the Brazilian, he was followed from his house and was allowed to get on a BUS!!!! It was not until he reached the station that they then confronted him.

If he was a suspected bomber, why did they let him get on a BUS???!!! Did the lives of the people on the bus not matter? It just does not add up.

No where does it say that they identified themselves as plain clothed police. It says they drew their weapons and told him to STOP. The fact that they were plain clothed is the problem here. If they had been uniformed police and he ran away from then, then it would still be a tragedy, but then we would need to question why he ran away from uniformed police.

If you are going to work with your head phones on and some guys appear infront of you with guns, who you have no idea who they are, will you automatically think they are police??? I doubt it. Especially in some parts of London.

[tux]

hmm i guess :/

[Eriken]

The latest I heard was that he got 8 shots? 1 in his shoulder and 7 in his head?

I guess it was the 8th shot that did it :roll:

In the end, if you're in London these days, and start running from the police I guess you're asking for trouble. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, what the police did, since I'm not able to put myself in that position..

But what if he had been a bomber, and made it into the train and killed a dozen people.. and you found out later that police was following him but decided to let him go? I guess it's difficult to find a suicide-bomber-pattern since most people who want to do it wont try it more than once.

Can't be easy being a cop in London these days
_____
Eriken

[cairnswm]

In summary:

http://www.cairnsgames.co.za/files/notthillgate1.JPG

[tux]

turns out the guy's visa ran out. so i guess thats why he ran from police

[savage]

So the latest leaked information from the police investigators is that the brazilian guy was NOT confronted by the police, he did NOT jump the barriers, he did run onto the train, but was NOT being chased by the police.



CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts cited by ITV News showed the Brazilian was NOT wearing a padded jacket and walked calmly through the underground station barriers - contrary to initial reports that he was running and had a bulky jacket that could have concealed a bomb.
...
Firearms officers had been given clearance to kill Mr de Menezes but, as they sped towards the underground railway station, he apparently seemed completely unaware that he was being tailed, ITV News said.


He was subsequently wrongly identified and was physicaly held/restrainted by a surveillance officer, before the police officers turned up and decided to shoot him 8 times.

Basically the police, as always, lied to cover their arses.

More info @ http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16290056%255E1702,00.html

Thank-you Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair for reducing terrorism and ensuring that everyone's way of life has not changed. Well done!

[Traveler]

The question that comes to mind is why did they shoot then?

The other thing is that I now feel for the man who decided to shoot the poor guy. I imagine he must feel terrible knowing that he killed an innocent man.

[cairnswm]

The question that comes to mind is why did they shoot then?

Because "The only way to stop a suicide bomber is a shot in the head" - quote from somewhere on the net.

[savage]

Because "The only way to stop a suicide bomber is a shot in the head" - quote from somewhere on the net.

This was actually said by the chief commisioner Ian Blair.

The best way to stop a suicide bomber is to find out the root cause that make people feel so powerless that their only means of protest is by blowing themselves up. We need to find out what causes people to be pushed to such an extreme. Find that out and address the cause and you don't need to shoot anyone in the head and reduce the likelihood of someone turning to suicide bombing. Give someone a reason to live and they will choose life. Remove any reason for living, then who knows how they will choose to die.

But dealing with the causes it probably too much like hard work. It's always easier to deal with effect, rather than cause.

[Sly]

We need to find out what causes people to be pushed to such an extreme.
The prime motivation behind these bomb attacks is religion. Religion is a powerful motive that has been used for many centuries as justification for killing by almost every religion.


Find that out and address the cause and you don't need to shoot anyone in the head and reduce the likelihood of someone turning to suicide bombing. Give someone a reason to live and they will choose life.
They believe that killing themselves for their religion is a higher honour than living. How do you plan to "fix" that?

[WILL]

Thank-you Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair for reducing terrorism and ensuring that everyone's way of life has not changed. Well done!

Well this is hardly a fair statement. Mr. Bush doesn't run England. Are you saying that one should not do the right thing because someone else might do something bad?

Of course it's easy to blame them. Propaganda director, Michael Moore does it with great easy. But he also has no problem with mixing facts with his own diluted (and ill researched) oppinions. Consider he edits everything to only match his personal feelings filtering out those nasty facts that might not go along with his story(he probably is so stubborn in his own oppinion to accept them anyways) add emotional music and completely random video clips to change and manipulate your emotional state into bleaving whatever he wants to tell you. Talk about sensationalizim at it's best.

Don't believe me? Watch FeirnHYPE 9/11 and you'll see the very same people on his video complaining how they were protrayed in his videos. Knowlage before emotion people...

Which bring me back to my point. Consider the media an how they do business. It's all about ratings. The more exciting the more people watch. The news stations know this so what do they do? They tell the story however it can be more exciting. Who cares what light they shed the story in right? Who cares what really happened right? It's all about the ratings. The media is not responsable in this respect, it's how the business has grown. And how you usually get your information unfortunately.

So take it with a grain of salt and be mindfull of what is expressed. Telling a story in a completely balanced way is near impossible. And you rarely get your news in this way. It's often always in the view of the reporter(or whoever writes what they say) so it's wise to consider this before jumpping on the 'band wagon'.

[Sly]

As an example of the power of religion, take the eviction of Israelis from land that is being given back to Palestine. One of residents who is being evicted said that "God says this land should not be given to them". That's the kind of blind stupidity that drives these people.

[JSoftware]

As an example of the power of religion, take the eviction of Israelis from land that is being given back to Palestine. One of residents who is being evicted said that "God says this land should not be given to them". That's the kind of blind stupidity that drives these people.

"GOD GAVE US THIS LAND!" :?

[Robert Kosek]

Well, you're perhaps the first Canadian I know of that agrees with my viewpoint Will. Glad to see I'm not the only one. ;)

This is why I don't enjoy political and religious debates on forums, as it tends to fragment the community. Certainly the discussions can be interesting, and even eye opening now and then, but it has a nasty habit of ruining the forum the remainder of the time.

Personally I doubt there will ever be "peace" in the Middle East. I don't think that after a millenium it would be much different between Jews and Palestinians. I don't think it'll be much different in regard to Jihadists either.

And that's about as far as I'll go into this debate...

[Traveler]

This is why I don't enjoy political and religious debates on forums, as it tends to fragment the community. Certainly the discussions can be interesting, and even eye opening now and then, but it has a nasty habit of ruining the forum the remainder of the time.

I completely agree with this.
If I had the choice I'd close this thread here and now.

[savage]

Before I start let just say that I am not religious at all and neither do I follow one political ideology. I simply do and think about what is right and what is wrong.


The prime motivation behind these bomb attacks is religion.

I disagree. This is the argument put forward by the media and is incorrect. And it is also the reason given for "not being able to negotiate with these people". Because as we all know arguing over faith is nearly always a no win situation. The reality is that religion is used as a recruitment tool, to back political motives. This has been the case always.

The reasons that the terrorists began this campaign has been stated by Bin Laden himself and more recently by someone who claims to be Bin Laden's deputy ( Ayman al-Zawahri ) . Both men have said the same thing....


* Withdraw from our land
* Stop stealing our oil and wealth
* Stop supporting corrupt rulers ( they are talking about Israel here ).


Why do the media or politicians never dwell on these points. Last time I checked, the US in particular, violates the very things that Bin Laden etc are complaining about.

So I agree WILL that the media is just there to sell the viewpoint of their owners who have close affiliations with certain political groups.. If the owners want public opinion to go one way, well then that is what comes out of the mouths of the reporters.

The points mentioned above are what should be used to begin negotiations. I am not saying give in, I am saying negotiate.
But every politician says "Terrorists cannot be negotiated with". This is total rubbish, throughout history in the end, after many lives have been lost, governments always, and I mean always, negotiate. Ireland, South Africa, India ( Ghandi was considered a terrorist in his day ) to name a few, google for a few more and you will see that they do.

All I am saying is instead of waiting 20 years to negotiate, lets skip all the killing of innocents and start negotiating NOW, before more blood is spilled!

Whether real or not, people in the Middle East have a perception of INJUSTICE, mainly due to double standards. For example, why is Israel allowed to have an illegal nuclear program, but Iran is not? Why doesn't the US hassle them about developing nuclear capabilities. Don't give me the self defence argument, because in that case very country in the world should have nukes to defend themselves with, not just a select few.

Since they ( the middle east ) feel that injustices are being commited, and there does not seem a peaceful way to resolve the injustice, they choose violence. The clerics use this perceived injustices to recruit the suicide bombers. Address the injustice in some way, so that people see that something is being done. This will reduce their feelings of helplessness.


They believe that killing themselves for their religion is a higher honour than living. How do you plan to "fix" that?

As I mentioned earlier, religion is a recruiitment tool. You need to remove their perception of injustices, and replace that with a sense of justice. With a sense of justice, people will be less likely to be drawn into the religious fervour. That is how you "fix" it.


Religion is a powerful motive that has been used for many centuries as justification for killing by almost every religion.

I totally agree, also one of the reasons why I refuse to follow any religion what so ever.

And my earliar quote address this...

Give someone a reason to live and they will choose life. Remove any reason for living, then who knows how they will choose to die.



Well this is hardly a fair statement. Mr. Bush doesn't run England. Are you saying that one should not do the right thing because someone else might do something bad?

I think it is a very fair statement. I and 2 million other people in the UK marched against the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Millions of others protested around the world, but to no avail. We all stated it would become a quagmire and that it was the wrong thing to do, but Bush and Blair, with what ever motives ( and I don't mean the WMD ones ) they had, decided to go ahead. I can hardly blame myself, as I marched/protested for what I believed was right. If the UK had not gone to Iraq and supported the US, which was the wrong thing to do to begin with, the likelihood of bombs going off in London would be zilch.

PS. I hope no one thinks I am attacking them personally, I respect everyone on this forum, even though I may not agree with things that are said. For me, things said in this thread remain in this thread and will not change my conversations with you via chat, email or other forums posts.

[savage]

I completely agree with this.
If I had the choice I'd close this thread here and now.

I'm sorry to hear that Traveler. I think discourse it an important tool in exchanging ideas. I have changed many of my ideals, which I thought were right based on these kinds of discussions. And I believe that I am a better person for the exchange. I don't expect people to agree with me, only to reflect on what I have said. Some people may end up seeing my perspective, others will see flaws in it and say I am talking rubbish. They are entitled to their opinion. Occasionally there will be an exchange of ideas and both parties will grow from it, just as I have done in the past and hope to do so in the future.

Every dicussion I have, writes a new page in my book of life. Corny as it sounds it's true.

[cairnswm]

@Savage

I agree :)

Nice to know someone else in the world thinks the way I do.

I live in a country that thanks to negotiations is growing, prospering and is probably the most racially progressive country in the world, and ony 10-15 years ago we were stagnating, and probably the most racist country in the world. Negotiations are worth it.

However - everyone likes to believe their way is best - (I could quote most of your last post here) - and therefore others should think the same way. Wether you say everyone is equal (but my wife must look after the kids) or you say White people are 'better' than people of other races - everyone believes they are right, and do not want to accept what other people believe as just as right (to them).

(Hope that made sense - I'm in a hurry).

I believe everyone that grew up int he 'old' South africa MUST be racist purely because of indoctrination - what matters is how we rise above it and cross that line.

But just because I believe that doesn;t mean every one else must - I have a number of friends that believe in the 'purity' of their culture (They are decended from English, Welsh, German, French with a little dutch as well). But because I dont give a damn about my own culture doesn;t mean I should expect them to not care about their own culture.


Whether real or not, people in the Middle East have a perception of INJUSTICE, mainly due to double standards.

It is real - to them.

PS. The words I hate most in the English language are Us and Them - as soon as you can put someone in a box (category) you can descriminate against them.

[Traveler]

I'm sorry to hear that Traveler. I think discourse it an important tool in exchanging ideas. I have changed many of my ideals, which I thought were right based on these kinds of discussions. And I believe that I am a better person for the exchange. I don't expect people to agree with me, only to reflect on what I have said. Some people may end up seeing my perspective, others will see flaws in it and say I am talking rubbish. They are entitled to their opinion. Occasionally there will be an exchange of ideas and both parties will grow from it, just as I have done in the past and hope to do so in the future.

Every dicussion I have, writes a new page in my book of life. Corny as it sounds it's true.

It is not that I don't want to encourage people to start discussions (just to opposit in fact), its just that I believe the topic is going into a wrong direction. IMO PGD is not a place to have political or religious debates.
(Especially in a time like this where posts are again dropped to an absolute minimum)