Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Unfortunately,there are some corrupted cops all over the
World.Fortunately,most cops are good guys. www.devilfinder.com Police Corruption cuhulin |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The best way is to be Armed and Dangerous.
cuhulin |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
W Link to London Bombing, Terrorism Spike | Shortwave | |||
Web Visitors in China Cheered for the Explosions in London | Shortwave | |||
HAMFEST: Electronic flea market in London, Sept 26th | Swap |