h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm with the police on this. They're all heroes. Would you chase after a man you thought was packed with explosives, knowing your own life was at risk, to save many strangers?

I'm grateful we have these men to look out for us.

I can't imagine how the policeman who shot the suspect is feeling, but they must take decisions in a split second and he must have thought lives were in danger.

The shoot to kill policy must stay in force, if only to act as a deterrent to other would-be suicide bombers. Their "reward in paradise" may not allow entry for those shot by police before they have carried out their atrocity (in their warped minds).

Of course I'm sorry for the bereaved family - but he's just another innocent? victim of the war on terror.

I sincerely hope the officer concerned doesn't lose his job - or worse - be charged with manslaughter or worse. He made the call, he was wrong. But he must have had his reasons.

I - for one - feel safer with armed police on the streets of any vulnerable city/town. I hope they shoot every terrorist/potential suicide bomber in the head. (hopefully innocent people will learn that if challenged by police to stop, they'll stop, or risk getting shot)

I have adult children in Manchester and Sheffield. I want them protected, whatever the cost.

Galaxy Babe

I find it most refreshing to hear your views on this thread.

I fail to see how Great Britain being involved in the Iraq war is an issue here - the majority of those killed by US and UK troops were Baathists - who were killing Sunnis.

A large number of those who've died were killed by other muslims - blown up by car bombs. Not to mention the execution of aid workers, who were helping muslims.

Lets get real here, this is not about Iraq, this is about an extremist group, who claim to be muslims, declaring war on the USA and it allies.

We've seen bombs in the UK and Spain and Egypt, and of course 9/11, and the ongoing Iraeli situation, where next ?

'Lets get real here, this is not about Iraq, this is about an extremist group, who claim to be muslims, declaring war on the USA and it allies.'

its allies in what? Canada is a long standing general ally of the U.S. and hasn't been attacked. Canada was an ally in the invasion of Afghanistan (and the first American invasion of Iraq) and hasn't been attacked for that. Canada still has troops in Afghanistan and is about to deploy more, and we've not been attacked for that (except within Afghanistan by both Taliban and American forces ). The only thing we've not been an ally of the U.S. in lately is the present Iraq war.

What allies are you meaning, McKay?

Which surely shows this is not about Afghanistan - something that is usually put forward as the reason for the start of these attacks - given that 9/11 was before Iraq.

Was it about the bombing of Tripoli - that was exclusively UK and USA I think. In Iraq there are/were troops from many nations, who have not as yet been attacked in this way.

I don't know who/what defines where the bombings will be, but I'd say that until we do it is dangerous to assume it won't happen in Will it be France next ? - about the banning of religous symbols from schools - many muslims were offended by that.

Will it be China ? Will it be Russia ? Will it be Switzerland ? I find the assumption that this is about Iraq to be facile, it ignores the actuality of who is killing muslims in Iraq. Iraq may be handy excuse, but this is far deeper than that.

Russia's already had it. It's about Chechnya there.

I think the ones in Iraq are about Iraq

Wasn't 9/11 about American troops in Saudi Arabia?

Didn't I read somewhere that one of the Tube bombers had expressed to aquaintances his anger over the invasion and occupation of Iraq?


My feeling is that you are both right and wrong, McKay. It seems to me that there is a proximate cause of all the attacks (the occupation of Iraq, Independence for Chechnya, unbelievers in Saudi Arabia) that can correctly be identified and that identification has some value. There is also, however, a deeper cause, which is, in my opinion, the hold that wahabi extremists hold over the Saudi royal family and much of the religious training that is given to Imams. Wahabi schools train large numbers of imams who are sent out to mosques around the world to be guest speakers and teachers. Unfortunately, many local communities seem to find it hard to refuse these gifted speakers who spend their time spreading wahabi extremism instead of Islam.

If the attacks do come to Canada, I expect the proximate cause will be the fact that Canadian Islamic communities, having very deep historical roots in Canada, have often in the past been very resistent to the wahabis. Based on recent events here, I expect that this resistence will only grow stronger.

Canada is also not adverse to refusing visas - something we seem unable to do in the UK - and even when we do - we let them in anyway to argue about it.

I have no problem whatsoever with the vast majority of foreign peoples that we have accepted into the UK. We've had a tradition of other cultures coming here for thousands of years. It enriches our society and we also need people for economic reasons. As a Londoner I love our rich and varied society. What I can't stand is extremist fundementalists of any faith or race. To me their mad philosophy is akin to fascism and we should stand up to them as best we can and yes shoot to kill as I believe that is the only language they understand. I wonder if they will continue to attack only London or move to other places in the UK? I know London is the capital and seat of political power but it also one of the most liberal and open minded areas pf Britain. A million marched in our streets against the war in Iraq. Whatever sympathies many may have for the West's attitude to the Muslim world are being sorely tested.

Which makes me think these extremists couldn't give a toss about that. They want to try to stir up riots and extremism in much the same way as the National Front has sought to do.

But we're not going to let them.. We'll stand against them united in disgust at their murdering violence. There's a tradition of doing that in Britain. I remain optimistic that we'll not let them change our essentially open and free society.

Right in something of a departure from my normal "knee jerk leftie" leanings I am solidly behind the police as things stand.

If they have reason to suspect that someone is a suicide bomber who runs when challenged toward of all places a packed train; then I do not see what choice the police have to to stop them.

Given that if they have explosives strapped to them it is not really practical to shoot them in the torso, and given that if they have a manual trigger there is little point in disabling them, I also dont see what other than "shoot to kill" they can do.

Whilst it is tragic that an innocent man died, I think as things stand the police are totally vindicated in the action.

Howevetr I accept that this view might change if different factors come to light. Specifically I am assuming that the cops clearly identified themselves and followed procedure.

for the poor chap who died, but good on the police for taking such a hard decision.

Of course any terrorist worth his fine pink mist is going to have a dead-man-switch from now on....
BCNU - Crescent

What exactly is a dead-man switch?


az

I think it's a trigger for a detonator which works when the grip on it is relaxed (rather than the other way round). So if someone shoots you, you relax your grip on it and it goes off

'A dead man switch', or a 'dead man's handle' is a switch that activates when it is released. In this example, it would be a switch that triggers an explosion when released. The idea is that it activates if the operator is incapacitated. Trains have dead man's handles for the driver, so that if he loses consciousness the brakes are applied.

They also have them on railroad locomotives as a safety feature: if the operator has a heartattack or passes out from drinking too much the train comes to a stop rather than zipping through the next twenty-seven stations.

holy simulpost!

If it's so easy to rig up a dead man's switch why aren't they doing that in Israel where there are far more suicide bombings and more foiled bombings by the security services?

I suspect it probably actually isn't so easy. They're not that clever all the time. Four bombs all failed to detonate at the second attempt on the 21/7. it is suggested that this was because the unstable explosives they were using had gone 'off' by then.

*Started into the backlog but then couldn't be arsed, so Im gonna jump in with my 2pence"

So I have "olive" skin. Im half chinese-half white, but my looks fit in all over the world, whenever I go on holiday they talk to me as if Im a native, this has happened from Brazil to Thailand, from Spain to Turkey. People can't generally place my descent, but i *could* look like im middle eastern (definately a lot more middles eastern than the shot guy). I usually have a rucksack with me as well.

Im never running to catch a train in London again. Hell, Ive ran all the way across the underground from train to train before to get to Paddington and not miss my one-off ticket back to Bristol... I never feel my race affects me, I'm English and Bristolian first and foremost. But for the first time I think that it will next time Im in London. How many "olive" skinned people, wherever they are from, will feel threatened using public transport, not just from bombs but from police with guns now...

Just a question, Id never move faster than a slow stroll in an underground station again, how of you white Londoners would be nervous (or wouldnt) running to get a tube train, late for an important interview or journey etc?

The innocent shouldnt have to fear death from the forces of law and order. But then I wouldnt have a problem with the CORRECT shooting of a suicide bomber. Its a complex one this one...

According to the man's family and the transit authorities he did not wear a bulky jacket nor did he jump the turnstiles

sorry about the lengthy quote....


Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket

Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier

Mark Honigsbaum
Thursday July 28, 2005
The Guardian

Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.

"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at 10am last Friday after being followed from Tulse Hill. Scotland Yard initially claimed he wore a bulky jacket and jumped the barrier when police identified themselves and ordered him to stop. The same day the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said the shooting was "directly linked" to the unprecedented anti-terror operation on London's streets.

*********************************************

So you're rushing to work, you have overstayed you're visa and bunch of hard-looking lads yell "stop police!"
Do you:
a) run to try to get away from what looks like it could be an ugly situation in which the cops are trying to arrest a terrorist and you're not a terrorist so they must have been shouting at someone else
b)run to avoid being deported
c) run because they may not be the police

You're a cop staking out a possible terrorist hide out and a swarthy man in a denim jacket with a knapsack comes out of the same building and heads toward the tube station.
do you:
a)assume he is on his way to work or school and just happens to live in the same block of flats
b) assume that since it is warm but he is wearing a light coat and is of dark complexion he must be one of terrorists and arrest him
c) follow him and wait until he's inside the train station to yell police and then shoot him 7 times once your mates bring him down.

He doesn't look swarthy in the pictures.

Goodness. Someone is quick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

and, I find this disturbing:

'Police have been given permission to shoot dead suspected suicide bombers without any verbal warning'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1536770,00.html?gusrc=rss