It isn't the first time the police have killed an innocent person here.

I thought this guy was being followed from his house though?

"salaf" wrote:

It isn't the first time the police have killed an innocent person here.

I thought this guy was being followed from his house though?

Apparently they were watching someone living in his box of flats. They decided to follow him. When he decided to catch the tube, the panicked. He saw gunmen running after him and panicked.

A panicking plain clothed officer thought he may be a suicide bomber and after his colleagues bundled the man to the ground, he decided to let rip 'just in case'. five bullets to the head.

The copper should be done for murder.

As an afterthought, if the victim had turned out to be a muslim, would they have been as forthcoming that they messed up?

Because he is a foeigner, I don't think his family will get justice.

I doesn't matter that the guy turned out not to be a Muslim.

Fact is police thought they were shooting a Muslim.

"Admin" wrote:

I found it sickening when on the news they virtually sighed in relief that it wasn't a muslim.

An innocent person was killed. It does not matter what creed e held, but the fact the coppers were trigger happy.

The shooter better be punished.

I agree with u

but the reason why I'm was relieved that he werent Muslim was cos this would have resulted in MORE angry frustrated Muslims

which might have resulted in MORE backlash

"MuslimSister" wrote:

Did they say that?

Would they have shot him if they knew he was a Brazillian Catholic?

"MuslimSister" wrote:

Was he a bearded guy?

No beard.

"MuslimSister" wrote:

But we can't assume can we?

Why not?

Stands to reason. They wouldn't have shot him if they thought he was a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Bahai, Toa, Hari Krishna, Scientologist, or Branch Davidian.

Guy wearing puffy jacket runs into tube station, must be Muslim, must be suicide bomber, must be nuetralised.

Unless ofcourse this guy knew something he shouldn't have known. And some rogue cop wanted to silence him. Apparently they also shot the guy in the mouth.

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

I found it sickening when on the news they virtually sighed in relief that it wasn't a muslim.

An innocent person was killed. It does not matter what creed e held, but the fact the coppers were trigger happy.

The shooter better be punished.

I agree with u

but the reason why I'm was relieved that he werent Muslim was cos this would have resulted in MORE angry frustrated Muslims

which might have resulted in MORE backlash

I disagree.

So we say when a muslim blows a train up don't lash against muslim, but when a muslim is killed by the cops, a lashing out is acceptable?

He was not a muslim, but do you think they would have shot him if they thought he wasn't?

Our reaction should be identical in either situation, or we are part of the same hypocrisy we blame others of.

u misunderstood my point

why did London bombing happen? u said urself it was cos of Iraq

whenever Muslims are opressed unfairly they lash out

IF the guy unfairly murdered ended up being a Muslim, some extreme Muslims may have used it as a reason/excuse to retaliate

of course NO type of lashing out is acceptable

thx for correcting me.

[size=18]We Are All Collateral Damage[/size]

[size=11][b]By Zaid Shakir[/b][/size]
[i]
[u]
The Roads to Peace[/u]

The roads to peace are paths of war,

The gentle dove will leave her scar.

The moral men to say the least,

Will kill us all to get their peace.

The roads that lead to victories gained,

Are filled with people full of pain.

Only our Creator knew,

We’d kill so many to save so few.[/i]

The recent terrorist tragedy in London is disheartening. Once again some nefarious force has seen fit to totally disregard innocent human life in pursuit of a vile agenda that few of us know and even fewer could understand. The response of the world leaders assembled in Edinburgh for the G-8 Summit is perhaps more disheartening, as it promises more of the misguided policies that have proven so ineffective in prosecuting the war on terror. The leaders of the Western powers continue to imply that they will fight violence with more violence of their own. If current events are any indicator of future developments, such a policy will only serve to beget yet more terrorism.

This is a war being guided on both sides by self-righteous murderers whose motives and proclamations mirror each other. Each side sees God as being exclusively with them. That being the case, the restraint and judiciousness urged by Christian and Islamic theology to guide the execution of war is cast aside with wanton impunity. Each side manipulates a vulnerable public to create a climate that allows for the perpetuation and the inevitable escalation of the ongoing slaughter. Each side reserves the right to use the spectacle of indiscriminate violence to “Shock and Awe” the opposition, yet will deny that its tactics can be described as terrorism. Each side sees their civilian population as hapless, innocent victims, while the suffering innocent civilians on the other side are acceptable collateral damage.

There will never be any real progress in ending this terror war, until we realize that we have all become collateral damage, unacceptable collateral damage. That being the case, there is no they or we in this affair. We are they and they are we. When a child in New York never sees his mother again because she was crushed in a collapsed tower at the World Trade Center, we all have suffered an irreplaceable loss. When an impoverished family in Afghanistan is bombed from the face of the Earth by a misguided missile, something of our collective humanity is destroyed by the blast. When a child in Iraq is born with gross birth defects due to his mother’s exposure to depleted uranium, we have all been deformed. When London commuters fear ever again entering the underground, because of the ill-advised actions of a handful of desperate fanatics, their insecurity touches us all.

We, the collaterally damaged, will continue to exist in a state of dehumanizing loss, deformity, and insecurity until we rise up, unite, and refuse to support at any level the policies of leaders who continually fail to heed one of the surest of all political lessons: killing innocent civilians will never lead to a positive outcome for the transgressing party. This realization is the first meaningful salvo anyone could fire in a real war on terror. However, as long as we are not as moved by the suffering of innocent civilians anywhere as we are by the suffering of those close to us, it will be a salvo that remains unfired.

Imam Zaid Shakir

7/7/05

[url=http://www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=76]Zaytuna[/url]

Now if an English man had been killed in the same way in Brazil would the UK accept it as the Brazillian police force doing their jobs.. hmmm.

Anyways, just found another interesting development in the independant London Bombings investigations:

Quote:

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'.

The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train.

They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.

[url=http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09a... News[/url]
"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train".
"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train".
"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train".

Yeah, it was Muslims, sure, sure, that's it. Muslims did it, with backpacks, yeah, that's it, backpacks!

okay another interesting development..

Quote:

A senior Metropolitan police source with knowledge of firearms procedures said of the shooting at Stockwell: "This was an intelligence led operation, within the parameters of Kratos." Officially the Met will not talk about Kratos, but the tactics have been in place for a year and were developed after British officers learnt from their Israeli counterparts how best to tackle suicide bombers.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1534753,00.html]G...
Thanks Israel!.. Thanks very much!! :x

Muslims back 'shoot to kill' despite an innocent man's death

Leading British Muslims last night backed the police's "shoot-to-kill" policy to tackle the threat of suicide bombers, despite a police admission that the man shot dead at Stockwell Tube station on Friday was not a terrorist.

Politicians and civil liberties activists called for a review of the policy but said that it was justified when officers concluded that a suspect posed a genuine threat.

Some Muslim leaders, however, expressed concern about shoot-to-kill. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We accept that the police are under tremendous pressure, but it's vital that the utmost care is taken to ensure that innocent people are not killed due to over-zealousness."

Abdulhaq Addae, a spokesman for Brixton mosque, said that he was "disturbed" by the policy but would support it if the police had "clear evidence"

Scotland Yard declined to say last night whether the tactics for dealing with suspected suicide bombers would be reviewed. The Independent Police Complaints Commission will investigate the shooting, as it does all similar incidents as a matter of course.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/24/nshot124...

This story is way dodgy. :evil:

The headline implies that Muslims don't care about the man's innocence.

The article only quotes Khalid Mahmood as backing this policy.

Most Muslim leaders have expressed criticism, but the article refers to them as 'some Muslim leaders'.

Can't expect any better from the Telegraph. :roll:

so u saying that the article only focusd on them muslim leaders who backed this policy?

there shouldnt even be ONE Muslim leader that backs this policy

There was only one 'leader' who backed the policy: Khalid Mahmood. But the headline says 'Muslims' (plural). This is a purposely Islamaphobic article.

I may well get slammed for this, but I just want to know, why the hell did he run? He was being chased by armed officers; they must've shouted out warning him, it's policy to do so.. In this time of fear and uncertainty for EVERYONE, if the police say stop and hop on one leg, singing pat-a-cake, you stop and hop on one leg and sing pat-a-cake. I don't abide by all the krap about civil rights on such matters when people's lives are at stake. Dropping a little pride along the way is not going to kill us.

Personally, I think the Met have an extremely difficult job to do - do they stop the guy and question him? They were watching his residence, then he walks out on a summer's day in a big jacket. They told him to stop as they chased him. He didn't. So they trip him up and stop him. If they took that extra moment to help him up and question him, he may have had enough time to click a button..

I'm not saying at all that it's ok to kill an innocent man. But, Lord, I feel for the Met Police at the moment. They have a flippin' hard job to do. Do they take a chance on one person, or take a chance on a train-load?

I know I'll get stick for this. But I have dear friends in the Met. I have family that work for the Underground. I've already lost one friend to these horrors this last month. You can bet your bottom dollar that, may Allaah protect us, should they find such a person again and he/she DID have a device strapped to them, I'd want them stopped with any means necessary before I lost my brother.

Salaam.

Seeyas.

Salaam

No you will not be slammed for your view.

However its hard to make out what people are shouting in a busy environment. Add the panick of seeing a plain clothed gunman running at you.

salaam
Aphrodite

welcome back to the forums, not seen on here for along time

so your friend actually died in the terrorist attacks? May Allah grant him/her jannat and gave his/her family patience.
How ahve you been since the attacks?

regarding your post, i agree with you that the police have a hard job.... but having a shoot to kill policy is dangerous and especially for Muslims, if they were behind the attacks on 7/7, then Muslims are the ones they are looking for.

the man who was shot, eyewitnesses have said the police did not shout out 'police' or show id, they just said get down, stop..they only put their Police caos on after they started chasing him...so i dont even think the man knew he was being chased by police- he might have even thought that he was being chased by terrorists, muggers etc.....

also 5 men got him down, leaned on him, pressed their knees on his body then shot him 5 times in the head. now if he was a suicide bomber if u lean on him, or put force on his body then that could detonate the bomb! and why shoot him 5 times in the head...isnt one enough?

now many Muslims who have beards, hijabs, niqabs, jilbaabs, long coats carrying a bag, briefcase etc are 'possible suicide bonbers'- so should they be shot?

wasalaam

"irfan" wrote:

There was only one 'leader' who backed the policy: Khalid Mahmood. But the headline says 'Muslims' (plural). This is a purposely Islamaphobic article.

as u sed, cant expect anything else from the stupid telegraph. :roll:

"Aphrodite" wrote:

I may well get slammed for this, but I just want to know, why the hell did he run? He was being chased by armed officers; they must've shouted out warning him, it's policy to do so.. In this time of fear and uncertainty for EVERYONE, if the police say stop and hop on one leg, singing pat-a-cake, you stop and hop on one leg and sing pat-a-cake. I don't abide by all the krap about civil rights on such matters when people's lives are at stake. Dropping a little pride along the way is not going to kill us.

Personally, I think the Met have an extremely difficult job to do - do they stop the guy and question him? They were watching his residence, then he walks out on a summer's day in a big jacket. They told him to stop as they chased him. He didn't. So they trip him up and stop him. If they took that extra moment to help him up and question him, he may have had enough time to click a button..

I'm not saying at all that it's ok to kill an innocent man. But, Lord, I feel for the Met Police at the moment. They have a flippin' hard job to do. Do they take a chance on one person, or take a chance on a train-load?

I know I'll get stick for this. But I have dear friends in the Met. I have family that work for the Underground. I've already lost one friend to these horrors this last month. You can bet your bottom dollar that, may Allaah protect us, should they find such a person again and he/she DID have a device strapped to them, I'd want them stopped with any means necessary before I lost my brother.

Salaam.

Seeyas.

Aphrodite!! Welcome back, missed ur posts...:) Hope ur doing well.

Just thought i'd point out that the police werent watching HIS residence, it was a block of flats that was under surveillance, so they followed the guy wearing a bulky jacket who happened to come out of it.

as Ed mentioned, witnesses did not see the police revealing themselves as such - they were plainclothes. now i know that if i saw 20 ppl (thats no exaggeration - the exact number quoted on the BBC) running towards me, my instinctive reaction would be to run. :?

"MuslimSister" wrote:

You know if one has a bomb on them, arent these things "timed" to go off at a certain time?

Or does one have to activate it manually?

Both are possible

"MuslimSister" wrote:

You know if one has a bomb on them, arent these things "timed" to go off at a certain time?

Or does one have to activate it manually?

depends, first they were saying the 7/7 bombs had timers on 'em as some of them went off at exactly the same time. but later the story changed to there being suicide bombers, which meant they would have had to manually detonate the bomb. :?

"MuslimSister" wrote:

But this "shoot to kill" policy really needs to be changed. Wearing a bomber jacket on a hot day and not stopping for a bunch of guys who don't even look like the police is not a valid reason to be mistaken and killed for a suicide bomber.

Definitely. I really feel the PTB are putting so much pressure on our emergency services to act quickly, that they're ending up making stupid and horrid mistakes. Without being in the position, it's extremely difficult to understand the kind of hammering our services and servicemen and women get in such situations. I've heard of people saying the officer in question should be repremanded. Yes he should, he was perhaps just a little too trigger happy - or he had someone breathing down his neck too hard. In which case, whoever was doing the exhaling, should definitely be brought to stand and answer for his/her part.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

"[b]Shooting victim had expired visa[/b]

The Brazilian man shot dead by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber in south London had been in Britain on an out-of-date visa, officials say.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, may have run from police because of his visa situation, BBC correspondents say.

The electrician had come to the UK on a student visa, which allows people to work for a small number of hours.

Relatives of Mr Menezes deny his visa had expired and are considering suing over the Stockwell Tube shooting..."

again our government has been caught lying to us.

imagine if the guy happened to be an innocent Muslim, there's no way the govt would admit to it.

just like the other Muslims who died on 7/7, just a convenient cover up!