Sunday, July 24, 2005



Summary execution II

For those who haven't already heard it, the man seemingly summarily executed in London on Friday was not connected with the bombings. So the police have killed an innocent man, in circumstances which they still refuse to fully explain.

As I said earlier, this stinks to high heaven. It stunk when the victim was believed to be a suspected terrorist, and it stinks even more now. While the police are allowed to use deadly force in order to protect their own lives and those of the public, they haven't offered any sort of explanation which even comes close to explaining why it was necessary in this case. They haven't, for example, alleged that he was holding anything which looked like a triggering mechanism for a bomb (which would justify the shooting IMHO), only that he "refused to obey police instructions". That does not justify 5 bullets in the head, no matter which way you look at it.

Fortunately, the UK has an Independent Police Complaints Commission which is investigating this, so maybe we'll see something other than the usual whitewash...

34 comments:

yeah its not as if there was a war on or anything is it?

I'll say it again, this is a tragic accident - but you do not run away from armed and jumpy police who are responding to a terrorist attack.

Remember that there WAS a terrorist attack in progress. Context is sometimes important.

In my preferred world, cops in London don't need to carry guns, or to be scraping bits of person off the walls of the tube so they can (hopefully) be reconsituted into what remains of a person.

In my preferred world idiots think a bit harder before when they bandy charged words like "summary execution" around.

How many US soldiers have died from letting up their guard when a suspect in Iraq was "subdued" - not an inconsiderable number is it?

Incidentally how do you define "subdued" when confronted with a writhing potential terrorist, who may have a bomb belt on, and who you have had to chase down and who wouldn't obey multiple commands to stop?

But my friend idiot, you have already revealed which side you ae on haven't you?

Posted by gazzadelsud : 7/24/2005 01:48:00 PM

Gazzadelsud...care to explain how you shoot a guy who's held down, 5 times by accident???

In Iraq the US soldiers shoot first and ask questions later...its understandable as everyone is a potential threat. It means fewer Americans coming home in boxes but is probably counter productive in terms of fighting terrorists as each time they kill an innocent person (which is fairly often) it drives a few more people into supporting the enemy.

In any case what is good for Iraq may not be so good for downtown London where the cops are surrounded by the very people they are supposed to be protecting.

Its been a tough couple of weeks for the authorities over there but what is needed is calm heads not cops dispensing street justice.

Posted by Michael : 7/24/2005 02:26:00 PM

I think Gazza puts it well. Indeed it's tragic, but as the UK Sunday times notes: "The Met issued new guidance to firearms officers after 9/11, directing them to shoot a suspected suicide bomber in the head to prevent him detonating any explosive".

These orders were issued because of the real and present danger of further mass killings. Like Gazza said, I myself wouldn't flee from armed police onto the subway 24 hours after a bungled atrocity whilst the suspects remained at large. Also, the use of a title like "summary execution" in a post is just pure shit-stirring. And much as I respect Lula, the spectacle of the Brazilian government demanding explanations about police 'executions' of innocents is tragedy pushed to the point of farce. How many thousand executions have the Brazilian death squads, oops, 'Police' carried out??

Posted by Adrienne : 7/24/2005 02:44:00 PM

Before i retire to my book (the very engaging history of Te Kooti, Redemption Songs), and my Trinity Roots cd for the night and leave all in deserved peace, here's a link to an excellent article in the fair UK Times that iterates my argument well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1706321,00.html

May we see an end to killing, in London or Egypt or Iraq or Sudan or Chechnya, and may we see it soon...

call it an aetheist's prayer...

Posted by Adrienne : 7/24/2005 03:29:00 PM

We just don't know what was going through the Brazilian's head at the time (other than the 5 bullets).

I did notice that the police are not required to identify themselves as cops in this situation and as they were plain clothes police he may have had no idea who they were.

Alternatively He may have had other reasons to run from the police or maybe in Brazil running from the police is actually the safest option and old habits die hard.

Its all speculation really and it will hopefully all come out in the investigation.

Regardless of that, although you may be uncomfortable with the word "execution" I don't see how holding someone down and shooting them 5 times in the head could really be described as anything else.

Any tube users who happen to have darkish skin and who carry a rucksack should be feeling pretty nervous right about now.

Posted by Michael : 7/24/2005 03:36:00 PM

In response to Michael

I think I was wrong to call this an accident. From what little any of us (including you) know these seem to be the facts:

a we are in the middle of a terror bombing campaign

b police have been told to be very careful and to expect suicide bombers - who may have the means to detonate themselves, and who certainly have that intention

c a suspect was told to stop by police

d these police were plain clothes - they may or may not have identified themselves as such

e the suspect rather than stopping, vaulted a barrier and ran away

f he was chased down and jumped

g he may or may not have been struggling/subdued - we don't know this.

h a policeman shot him in the head 5 times

i police may or may not (this seems hazy) have been told that if there was reasonable doubt the best way to disable a suspected suicide bomber was to shoot them in the head.

From this incident I draw the following thoughts:

1. this seems to have been a tragedy - even if he had other good reasons to be running away from Cops, there is no death penalty for petty theft, drug dealing or whatever.

2. police seem to be taking the terrorist threat incredibly seriously - british cops are normally fanatically fastidious about using force.

3. consequently what else don't we know about the current terror situation?

I still strongly take issue with the description "summary execution" it doesnt fit the facts and it is ridiculously emotive.

Posted by gazzadelsud : 7/24/2005 03:53:00 PM

I still think it is wrong to kill unarmed men.

As I said before, you all think it is OK for the west to kill innocent civilians, but heaven forbid they fight back.

I would like you to go to a middle eastern villiage ravaged with US bombs and tell them why it is OK to kill them.

Posted by millsy : 7/24/2005 06:24:00 PM

"but heaven forbid they fight back."

milsy,

If you excuse them for using less moral methods of fighting back then how can you argue against the equivilent escelation on the side of the civilized governments.

Neither you nor the terrorists should be happy about an arms race. An arms race that the terrorists as a whole can only loose.

there is a morally consistant position that says they should not target innocent civilians and should not aim to set up systems that oppress people etc. And that the US, on the whole, does not aim to do these things while they do.

It does not seem valid to me to use the argument many on the left seem to use which says the underdog can target innocent civilians as long as it equalizes the power struggle.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/24/2005 08:09:00 PM

BTW it seems funny when we talk about "the west" in this regard - it seems a bit ethnocentric.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/24/2005 08:25:00 PM

gazzadelsud, why do you presume he knew they were cops?

Posted by Christiaan : 7/24/2005 09:13:00 PM

anonymous wrote: "there is a morally consistant position that says they should not target innocent civilians and should not aim to set up systems that oppress people etc. And that the US, on the whole, does not aim to do these things while they do."

This sort of bigotry and delusion pisses me right off. Have you ever sat down and counted the millions of civilians the U.S. and other Western governments have knowingly bombed and killed over the decades??? You're living in a propaganda bubble.

What do you call the hundreds of thousands fire and nuclear bombed in Japan?? What do you call the hundreds of thousands bombed in Vietnam and Columbia? What do you call the hundreds thousands bombed in Iraq? Collateral fucking damage?

So what's the dfifference between "their" "collateral damage" and "our" "collateral damage"? 52 dead, some of whom probably helped reelect a man who is arguably a war criminal, in the process endorsing a policy of illegal "preemptive" attacks on other nations and peoples.

It's people like you who let the Hitler's of this world become powerful. Wake the fuck up before it's too late. You make me sick.

Posted by Christiaan : 7/24/2005 09:21:00 PM

christiaan, you are a very sad little man, take a chill pill.

The Americans have been pulling their own civilians and military out of the wreckage of terrorist attacks for 30 years now - do you somehow forget this.

Do you somehow forget Pearl Harbour,Guadalcanal, Midway etc etc. or is it just all evil hegemon all channels in your sad little world.

Learn some history and grow up

Posted by gazzadelsud : 7/24/2005 09:59:00 PM

ps., in your own words wake the fuck up - do you REALLY want to see what the Americans can do if the chips were down?

Posted by gazzadelsud : 7/24/2005 10:00:00 PM

"Have you ever sat down and counted the millions of civilians the U.S. and other Western governments have knowingly bombed and killed over the decades???"

Pretty sure that if you think thats correct then your living in a propaganda bubble.

If your somehow including WW2 figures in this, remember we were killing each other. And there is this little thing called 'war'. International conventions can say whatever they like about just war, but when it comes to it, anything can, will, and does occur in a time for conflict, and you certainly can't use it to paint everyone the same colour 50 years down the track.

Stop being so emotive and debate the issue rationally.

And another thing; you all say that we are just assuming the police identified themselves, etc. But I'm pretty sure you are all assuming that they didn't. This is definately an agree to disagree issue, because the real facts aren't known, and without them, all any of us can do is speculate and provide our opinion.

Just please don't try to shove down my throat why you are right when you have about as much to work off as the rest of us.

Posted by Gina : 7/24/2005 10:20:00 PM

Pretty sure that entire post was full of 'your's instead of 'you are's and I think there is a 'for' instead of a 'of'.

Heh, too tired.

Posted by Gina : 7/24/2005 10:21:00 PM

gazzadelsud, I'm going to decline the "chill pill" while delusional apologist racist bigots like you continue to help ruin my niece's future and the future of millions of other children in this world. You belong to a long and disgraceful tradition of citizens who have been sucked in by everything your "leaders" tell you; you're the same kind of good german citizen who allowed Hitler to power, and I've had enough of hearing from your screwed up heads.

"The Americans have been pulling their own civilians and military out of the wreckage of terrorist attacks for 30 years now - do you somehow forget this."

Next you're going to tell me America is the "most peace-loving of nations." Poor little America, such an innocent soul. This most peace-loving of nation's violence against others goes back 300 years, to its inception, when white people arrived and started wiping out the Indians. I'm not going to list all the violence carried out by the U.S. in the intervening years. Someone has already done that and it took a 300 page book:
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections of the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance, by Ward Churchill

You clearly need to read it.

"Do you somehow forget Pearl Harbour,Guadalcanal, Midway etc etc. or is it just all evil hegemon all channels in your sad little world."

It seems far beyond you to realise that Japan’s December 1941 bombings were more than justified under the doctrines of “anticipatory self-defence” that prevail among the leaders of today’s self-designated “enlightened States,” the U.S. and its British client.

"Learn some history and grow up"

Here's a little history lesson for you:
The official U.S. Air Force history relates that after the bombing of Nagasaki, when Japan’s submission to unconditional surrender was certain, General Hap Arnold “wanted as big a finale as possible,” a 1000-plane daylight raid on defenceless Japanese cities. The last bomber returned to its base just as the agreement to unconditional surrender was formally received. The Air Force chief, General Carl Spaatz, had preferred that the grand finale be a third nuclear attack on Tokyo, but was dissuaded. Tokyo was a “poor target” having already been incinerated in the carefully-executed firestorm in March, leaving perhaps 100,000 charred corpses in one of history’s worst crimes.

Such a peace-loving culture, so undeserving of terrorist attacks. Yeah right.

Please crawl back to the hole from which you came, while the rest of us try to salvage a future for the children of this planet.

Posted by Christiaan : 7/24/2005 11:46:00 PM

Gina wrote, "Pretty sure that if you think thats correct then your living in a propaganda bubble."

Are you kidding me?? Please, can you clarify, have or have Western governments not bombed and killed millions of civilians over the decades? I'm genuinely interested in the depth of your delusion.

"If your somehow including WW2 figures in this, remember we were killing each other. And there is this little thing called 'war'. International conventions can say whatever they like about just war, but when it comes to it, anything can, will, and does occur in a time for conflict, and you certainly can't use it to paint everyone the same colour 50 years down the track."

Haha, so what on earth is your problem with attacks on citizens who just reelected a man who is arguably a war criminal, and in the process endorsed an illegal and immoral doctrine of "preemptive" war and occupation of other nations?

You racists are all the same, "oh that was 50 years ago, it doesn't mean anything now." Well it means a shit load to the sons and daughters of those who were slaughtered while we did nothing to stop it, and now you're bitching and moaning because their heavies turn up for some pay back.

"Stop being so emotive and debate the issue rationally."

What would you know about rationality? You are so deluded and bigoted you can't even begin to admit to the murder and tyranny of our own culture. It all happened yesterday so it doesn't matter, as far as you're concerned.

"Just please don't try to shove down my throat why you are right when you have about as much to work off as the rest of us."

Why can't people like you just stop bitching and moaning and stand the fuck down. You're a disgrace, sitting there "enjoying your peaceful life minding your own business" while your governments murderously conquer the planet.

Please crawl back to the hole from which you came, while the rest of us try to salvage a future for the children of this planet.

Posted by Christiaan : 7/25/2005 12:00:00 AM

Christiaan,

Few things are sadder than bigots like yourself trying to tar others with the 'racist' brush.

As pointed out, your knowledge of history is inadequate and infantile. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about what happened in Naking, if you think that all war crimes are somehow the fault of the evil West. Not satisfied? How about Turkey's genocide of the Armenians, 1915? Rwanda? Oh that's right - that was the West's fault for NOT intervening... I am completing a PhD in history, and from my very slight vantage point of limited knowledge, can nevertheless assure you that the body politic of the world was and remains far more complex than your childish rendering of it.

As for Iraq, I would point to the liberation of the Kurds and the Shiites (the overwhelming majority of the population), their forming of a government and participation in the political process, and the prospect of a future for them free of terror and violence, as proof that even Iraq is a far more complex equation than the likes of yourself could ever find the courage to acknowledge.

You want a future for the children of this earth? Then educate yourself - that would be a start.

Posted by adrienne : 7/25/2005 02:49:00 AM

Speaking of education, Chrsitiaan, can you please tell me about the "hundreds of thousands [the US] bombed in Columbia"?

If you get yourelf a map, kid, I'll tell you how to find Columbia on it. Then you can tell us about these 'bombings'...

Sheesh...

Posted by adrienne : 7/25/2005 05:24:00 AM

To try to drag this argument towards the rational, there are several points that concern me, and they need to be asked of police. Firstly, would a white person wearing a puffer jacket have been suspected of the same intentions, or would he simply have been stopped and very carefully checked? If not, why not, and how can something be done to ensure that a large aspect of the suspicion does not revolve around the suspect's ethnicity? In this case, we know the man was not middle eastern, but Brazilian, so does that mean a brown hue to the skin is sufficient?
The second issue is, when the Brits and Americans are proudly spouting brave words about terrorists never taking our 'western' freedom, do we want to react to potential terrorist threats by doing away with one of our greatest freedoms, the right to a fair trial, before punishment is meted out.
It strikes me that when we start to lose those sort of freedoms, terrorism is winning.
Personally I find the situation - and the fact that police have been given the ok to do this - absolutely abhorrent, because I do believe that police (especially plainclothes) would not have shot a clearly British guy in a puffer jacket if he did a runner, which people often do faced with police, for many reasons. However, whatever side of the argument we personally fall on, I do believe it's absolutely essential these questions are asked before the practice is normalised.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/25/2005 08:01:00 AM

Hey adrienne, it seems the future for children you want is a future where their fathers are killed and mothers are raped by US troops in their burning villiage. Violence is wrong, get that through you thick head.

Posted by millsy : 7/25/2005 10:09:00 AM

adrienne wrote, "If you get yourelf a map, kid, I'll tell you how to find Columbia on it. Then you can tell us about these 'bombings'..."

I meant Cambodia. One might assume that an obviously superior intellect as yourself might have worked this complex puzzle out. In any case, let's not forget that it was before September 2001, so it doesn't count for anything.

adrienne wrote, "Few things are sadder than bigots like yourself trying to tar others with the 'racist' brush."

If not tolerating the racist and bigoted view that our culture is a peace-loving culture and god's gift to this planet, then I'm surely guilty as charged.

adrienne wrote, "Perhaps you'd like to tell us about what happened in Naking, if you think that all war crimes are somehow the fault of the evil West. Not satisfied? How about Turkey's genocide of the Armenians, 1915? Rwanda? Oh that's right - that was the West's fault for NOT intervening..."

Or perhaps you'd like to tell me where I wrote that I think "all war crimes are somehow the fault of the evil West"? Why the straw man? Why the consistent approach, when confronted with the violence of the West, to make excuses and point the finger elsewhere?

adrienne wrote, "As for Iraq, I would point to the liberation of the Kurds and the Shiites (the overwhelming majority of the population), their forming of a government and participation in the political process, and the prospect of a future for them free of terror and violence, as proof that even Iraq is a far more complex equation than the likes of yourself could ever find the courage to acknowledge."

Let's put "prospects" aside for a moment. And let's, for a moment, put aside what the Cheney gang have told you their big plan is. Let's instead talk about results.

According to a judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, in the 1945-1946 case of the major Nazi war criminals, to initiate a war of a aggression is not only an international crime, it is the "supreme international crime."

The RESULT of implementing this supreme international crime in Iraq has been the killing and mutilation of tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands; the poisoning of these "liberated" people's homeland with radioactivity; the possibility of civil war; the anger and resentment the invasion has generated throughout the Muslim world and the creation, as a result, of a more hospitable environment in which terrorists can operate; the reassertion of imperial power; and the derailing of international law.

These are the RESULTS. And not only do you not attempt to stop this, you actually appear to support it. And then people like you have the cheek to bitch and moan because the victim's heavies come looking for some justice in the form of a bomb under your ass.

I believe there was a moral case for deposing Saddam Hussein by violent means. And I believe there was a moral case for not doing so, and that this was by the stronger case, for the reasons above. I'm pretty much convinced that so long as people like you continue to fall for the propaganda handed to you by the people who have the most to gain from this conflict then there will be no future for the children on this planet to speak of.

Posted by Christiaan : 7/25/2005 10:14:00 AM

Oh bullshit. Most civilian deaths in iraq have come from Sunni insurgents. Do you have to get all teary and hysterical when you post? It's a little bit embarrassing. And as for "victim's heavies come looking for some justice in the form of a bomb under your ass", stop trying to sound like some gangsta rapper. I have no sympathy for the selctiveness of Islamic "anger", as I haven't seen any regarding the killings in East Timor, Sudan, Nigeria etc, the honour killings in Pakistan and Syria etc, the constitutional racism of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, or Malaysia. I haven't seen any 'bomb' under my ass, nor do I consider it a form of justice. Perhaps you can tell us why the bombings in Egypt constitute a similar "looking for a form of justice"?

As for 'propaganda', my own council shall I keep about what constitutes the same. Suffice to say, I think promises of 72 virgins and heavenly debauchery for the deliberate butchery of the innocent comes close. As for the 'propaganda' of the Cheney gang, the very purpose of civil society is to allow people to choose what they believe, rather than have it legislated for them.

I'll leave your adolescent drivel via a quote from Arundhati Roy about this: "The only institution more powerful than the economic and military might of the West is the power of Western civil society. This remains the great hope for the subjects of slave nations, in the fight for self-determination. Guard it, use it, celebrate it, for in it is the power to change the world".

Posted by adrienne : 7/25/2005 12:22:00 PM

> If not, why not, and how can something be done to ensure that a large aspect of the suspicion does not revolve around the suspect's ethnicity?

It is a sad fact that young men of certain ethnicities and who wear certain clothing tend to commit crimes more often than lets say old grannys wearing branded clothing from certain other ethnicities. In a perfect world police ignore such information but it isn't a perfect world.....

The problem is thus considerable.

Posted by Toonpi : 7/25/2005 07:28:00 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Posted by Gina : 7/26/2005 11:22:00 AM

Question: How the hell am I racist? Pretty sure that there was nothing in my post that was even anything NEAR a racist comment. You say that I am deluded!

I never said that the west hasn't murdered. Sure we have. But pretty sure others have also. My entire point is that while you are quite happy to go on about the west killing 'millions' of people, you are quick to turn a blind eye to others.

Posted by Gina : 7/26/2005 11:24:00 AM

It's shocking, but it would have been more so if it happened anywhere else but in Britain. What else can you expect from a nation that, through colonialism, commited more crimes against humanity than the rest of the world put together? I find it sad that a nation that plundered, robbed and killed all over the world under the pretext of "civilizing" them is considered our cousin and ally.

I find it mind-boggling that anyone in their right mind would defend this murder. To those xenophobes who are defending this murder, imagine your white, teenage son in the same position shot 10 times in the head, when he was probably dead after the first shot.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/26/2005 01:39:00 PM

I can see that situations like this might be unavoidable. But two things make this situation extremely sad -

1. It is no coincidence that the man shot was a non-white foreigner. What would the reaction have been if it had been a white American?

2. The fact that this crime is being condoned. Sure the policemen who shot the man made a difficult decision, but they did make a decision which resulted in murder. They should be tried for murder with due consideration to the circumstances, in a Brazilian court. We are effectively calling this death an unavoidable casualty. The punishment of the policemen will also be an unavoidable casualty.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/26/2005 01:44:00 PM

The ignorance of many of the more 'emotive' posters on the left is as sad and as scary as the ignorance of many on the right. It's just sad that here, on a supposedly 'tolerant' and inclusive site for the enlightenend, there's as much hatred, prejudice, fear and loathing as on some of the whackier sites of the right...

"[Britain...] Through Colonislism, commited more crimes against humanity than the rest of the world put together..." Oh dear. Where to start on this... I guess it would entail a colossal devaluing of history, from the Holocaust to Stalin's famines to Mao's cultural revolution et al, to make them mere footnotes to England's 19th abolition battles, the Raj, and so on. What else but hatred can spring from such frothing hysteria? It reminds me of the Nazi injunction to 'think with the blood' - something so many left AND right idiots seem to engage in... Comments like the above truly constitute a Nazism of the Left...

As for the Brazilian courts... Yes, yes... I see that happening after Brazil's sheltering of Ronnie Biggs for 30 years...

Posted by Adrienne : 7/26/2005 04:10:00 PM

> imagine your white, teenage son in the same position shot 10 times in the head.

Hmm the guy who was shot looks pretty white to me. Maybe not pasty irish white but then again they are probably targets for police violence too.

> They should be tried for murder with due consideration to the circumstances, in a Brazilian court.

So if you were in a car accident (potentially your fault and thus murder) lets say with a person from zimbabwae - mugabe would get to put you on trial? I dont think that system would work very well.
worse yet the various different laws depending on who you hit would be damn confusing.

Some people dont think these things through.

Posted by Toonpi : 7/26/2005 05:25:00 PM

Christiaan - Hitler was a socialist.

The kind of good German people who let him into power are people like you, who allowed the wolf to grow in their midst and then didn't know how to bleat when he started eating them.

I'm sure you would be singing a different song about how the Police forces are to blame if Jean Charles had been a suicide bomber and had killed thirty or forty people.

Suicide bombers don't wear nice convenient placards that say: "Here is bomber". It's not that easy and convenient to identify them. The man acted in a suspicious fashion, came from a suspicious house under police surveilance and then ran from people who could ONLY be the police. As far as I am aware, the modus operandi of terrorists is not to run after somebody in a crowded tube station waving guns. They generally aim for crowds.

Inspiring one individual to terror would be a bit contrary to their aims, don't you think? They want ALL of us to be afraid.

So I call bullshit on your idea that he would have worn a visible detonation device. He was swaddled in a big anorak! What could have been underneath it?

The police were doing their job. It is a terrible tragedy, but to blame the police for doing their job is idiocy.

And to say this was racially motivated because of Jean Charles's skin colour (Yes, he has a name - you Lefties might want to begin using it!) can only come from somebody who has not seen a photograph of the man. Go have a look

Posted by tincanman : 7/27/2005 09:11:00 AM

"The ignorance of many of the more 'emotive' posters on the left is as sad and as scary as the ignorance of many on the right. It's just sad that here, on a supposedly 'tolerant' and inclusive site for the enlightenend, there's as much hatred, prejudice, fear and loathing as on some of the whackier sites of the right..."

So many words, nary a point. You might be better served sticking to your opinions on the incident rather than of me.

"from the Holocaust to Stalin's famines to Mao's cultural revolution et al,"

Simple question - how long did each of those crimes last, and how long did colonialism last? The other incidents you mentioned were isolated cases of idiots with too much power. Colonialism was the result of a cultural phenomenon and fed on a xenophbia that continues to a lesser vein even today.

Frothing hysteria?! I simply stated a fact. Colonialism was

a. a phenomenon spanning generations
b. symptomatic of a cultural malaise

Maybe you should go a little easy on the paranoia pills.

Before equating the victims of colonialism with Nazis (that kind of similarity requires special talent to see), think about which "empire" killed more people than any other, who shed the blood of the followers of a non-violent, frail, vegetarian. Its not hard to see whose motto "thinking with blood is". As a matter of fact, this phrase more than explains the desire to shoot a man 10 times in the head, when the first shot probably killed him.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/27/2005 09:39:00 AM

"Hmm the guy who was shot looks pretty white to me."

Well, apparently not white enough!

"So if you were in a car accident (potentially your fault and thus murder) lets say with a person from zimbabwae - mugabe would get to put you on trial?"

That's the lamest analogy I've heard. You equate pumping 7 bullets into the head of a dead man with a car accident. So by your logic, if OBL is caught, he should be tried by Saudi Arabia laws and not by American ones. What was that about not thinking things through again?

How would you like it if people started shooting British guys all over the world, claiming that they were afraid the guy was a colonialist and would steal their land (they have in the past and they seem the "type"), and worse their governments did nothing about it?

Posted by Anonymous : 7/27/2005 09:52:00 AM

God, it just gets worse and worse. In this Guardian article it is claimed the Met has admitted that de Menezes was not wearing a bulky jacket, and did not jump the ticket barrier. Looking more and more like a summary execution every day. And the arguments of the commenters attacking I/S for his stance on this are getting thinner and thinner as time goes by. Crikey.

Posted by BerlinBear : 7/29/2005 03:19:00 AM