On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:34:48 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Fri 19 Aug 2005 09:23:06a, David wrote in message
:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:50:52 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


No, that's just one of the commuters. I've found plenty of references to
"initial eye witnesses". What's missing is where the "Running, Heavy
Coat, Acting Suspicious, Eluding" was confirmed or attributed to some
"Official".

Absent that, then it would appear to me that the *media* took commuter
interviews and have morphed those unofficial descriptions into the
official "Scotland Yard Initial Brief". When in fact, I can't find where
a named official with *any* law enforcement agency involved provided
that information. Now that investigation details have been leaked, it's
being drummed as if S.Y. was attempting a cover-up, when there's really
*zero* indication they had any intention of covering anything up. In
fact, by breifing the victim's family *during* the investigation, it
looks like S.Y. is trying to be completely straight with the facts, as
they are verified. Perhaps the media *has* been duped and is
perpetuating non-factual information that is aggravating an already
tragic situation - again, not through malice, just through shoddy,
journalism. And no-one's calling them on it (except me, of course).

-=jd=-
?

The ''Guardian'' article above says that Scotland Yard provided those
erroneous details. Scotland Yard is the HQ of the Municipal Police,
ain't it?



The "Guardian" is just passing along what they heard - Note that they don't
quote an official either, and just presume it eminated from S.Y. Look at
that other link you provided - the one where you claimed to have found the
source. You source was a commuter. IN that same article, another commuter
"source" said the guy was wearing a bomb-belt with wires sticking out of
it. You *do* read the links you push, right?

-=jd=-
I am aware of the evolution of the story. The question is are these
guys Sterno bums? Did they hallucinate this vivid and quite wrong
version, or is it something else?

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:39:14 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Fri 19 Aug 2005 09:26:01a, David wrote in message
:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:16:28 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

Heck, *one* shot could have sufficed if they just wanted to kill him,
but they believed they were trying to prevent a detonation (you places
yer bets, you takes yer chances). If, like the officers involved in this
shooting you think the guy can detonate a bomb, why risk it?

I had the impression that the task of the cop that grabbed him was to
pin his arms and hands in case he tried to reach for a detonator, while
someone else was responsible for taking the shots. And I'm sure his ears
may still be ringing...

-=jd=-

No bomb. Just panic.


I didn't get the impression it was the armed team's job to pat him down,
ask him questions, check him for drugs, or read him his rights. I had the
impression that their task was to turn him into a rag-doll as quickly as
possible. And they acccomplished their task with an apparent high level of
efficiency, not *panic*. It was someone else's job to point that team at
the right guy, and those charged with making the positive ID failed at
their task.

-=jd=-

Cops aren't supposed to behave like that. That's going over the line.

A free society has inherent risk.. That's the price we pay.

The cops cannot be that loose with lethal force. There is a flaw in
the system. I think those guys were drugged-up, on caffeine at least.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:09:46 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

Look, I realize you think that society should
tolerate radical islamic terrorists, but you'll need to come up with a
better argument than what you currently have...

I think what?

Society? Good one.

LookPal, the way I see it ''society'' gave up a long time ago. We
Westerners are raised as half-awake autonomic producer/consumers;
****ing dairy cattle at best.

What you call ''Islamic terrorists'' are people who don't want us to
infect them and who want us to go the **** away.

The best way to prevent attacks on our home soil would be for us to
quit attacking their home soil. Your remote control Robocop ain't
gonna do it.

Unfortunately,there are some corrupted cops all over the
World.Fortunately,most cops are good guys. www.devilfinder.com
Police Corruption
cuhulin

David wrote:


LookPal, the way I see it ''society'' gave up a long time ago. We
Westerners are raised as half-awake autonomic producer/consumers;

Well, mainly consumers anyway. "Producers" been dying a slow, painful
death since NAFTA, CAFTA, India and China...

****ing dairy cattle at best.

....or try "sheeple"--that works.

What you call ''Islamic terrorists'' are people who don't want us to
infect them and who want us to go the **** away.

If anyone was paying attention, that is *exactly* what Uncle Osama has
been saying all along.

The best way to prevent attacks on our home soil would be for us to
quit attacking their home soil.

Good idea...no, wait... strike that thought. It makes too much sense.

The best way is to be Armed and Dangerous.
cuhulin

A couple of articles in the middle isle (Clean Up on aisle 3!) at
www.rense.com blair/Police Outrageous Lies Exposed.Videos Contradict
blair/Police Claims About Killing.
cuhulin

wrote in message
...
How his ears are doing? On a fireing range with a bunch of other guys
fireing their Firearms (M1 Garand Rifles,at least) being fired,you only
hear the mechanical clicking noise of the Rifle you are fireing.I know
that is the way it was when I was at the Fireing Range at Fort
Gordon,Georgia in 1962.

The reports were obviously muffled by your head being so far up your ass.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:52:21 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


The *only* way they will stop attacking is if we all convert to islam or
submit to being slaves under islam. Otherwise, they have no choice but to
endeavor to slaughter us. That's not *my* rules; that's *their* rules. You
have absolutely no comprehension of radical islamic terrorists, other than
what the Bush-bashing web sites tell you. Wow! I *STILL* have you pegged!!
LOL!


-=jd=-

That's not what they say.

''WHAT THE CIA’S BIN LADEN EXPERT SAYS

The Commission’s analysis may have drawn on the writings of Michael
Scheuer, who served in the CIA for 22 years, and who headed the CIA
Counter-Terrorism Centre’s bin Laden task force (1996-1999). Scheuer,
who retired in Nov. 2004, wrote two recent books as ‘Anonymous’:
Through Our Enemies’ Eyes and Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing
the War on Terror. (He was unmasked in the Boston Phoenix.)

Scheuer contests the view put forward by George W. Bush and Tony
Blair: ‘We in the United States and the West make a mistake when we
argue, as has [New York Times columnist] Thomas L. Friedman, that bin
Laden’s attacks are “not aimed at reversing any specific U.S. foreign
policy,” or, as Steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin did in Survival in
early 2002, that bin Laden has “no discrete set of negotiatiable
political demands“.’ (Through Our Enemies’ Eyes, p. 256)

Scheuer argues that Osama bin Laden has ‘clear, focused, limited and
widely popular foreign policy goals’, including:

‘the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that
state; the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for the oppression of
Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for
repressive, apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan,
et cetera; and the conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resources
and their sale at higher prices.’

Scheuer observes that, ‘Bin Laden is out to drastically alter U.S. and
Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy
America, much less its freedoms and liberties. He is a practical
warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon.’
(Imperial Hubris, p. xviii)

Scheuer wrote, while still a serving CIA officer, ‘Bin Laden has been
precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of
the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and
democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in
the Muslim world.’ (Imperial Hubris, p. x) Scheuer goes further,
arguing that ‘the United States, and its policies and actions, are bin
Laden’s only indispensable allies’. (Imperial Hubris, p. xi)''

http://vitw.org/archives/947

Go to a Fireing Range and see/hear for yourself if you dont believe
me.Anybody who has been in the U.S.Military and on the Fireing Range
before will tell you the same thing.It is almost as though the Rifle has
a Silencer on it.In fact,the U.S.Navy was actually experimenting with a
Silenced Shotgun not many years ago,but that is a whole different story.
cuhulin