Jean Charles de Menezes

[wilmar13]

I understand it was a misunderstanding, but the British goverment justifying it is pretty messed up. I mean if a cop unloads 7 rounds into someones head (1 in the shoulder) after he is already on the ground with two officers holding him down don't you think that cop may not be emotionally stable enough to continue in the same line of work? I am not saying he needs to be charged with manslaughter... but geesh the poor guy is late for work, doesn't stop when a couple of guys in plain clothes ask him to (Who talks to Jehovahs Witnesses or salemen even when they aren't late), and then is shot 8 times (7 in the head) after being tackled seems kinda ****ed up to me to have the response be: "Geesh we are really sorry, but we couldn't take a chance". IMO it is a mistake to not admit excessive force by the officer/s involved as by all accounts he was shot after being tackled.

Bad situation for all involved for sure, but I do think it is strange to not produce more details (at least fabricate something) if they are going to defend the officers actions.

 

[FredC]

I understand it was a misunderstanding, but the British goverment justifying it is pretty messed up. I mean if a cop unloads 7 rounds into someones head (1 in the shoulder) after he is already on the ground with two officers holding him down don't you think that cop may not be emotionally stable enough to continue in the same line of work? I am not saying he needs to be charged with manslaughter... but geesh the poor guy is late for work, doesn't stop when a couple of guys in plain clothes ask him to (Who talks to Jehovahs Witnesses or salemen even when they aren't late), and then is shot 8 times (7 in the head) after being tackled seems kinda ****ed up to me to have the response be: "Geesh we are really sorry, but we couldn't take a chance". IMO it is a mistake to not admit excessive force by the officer/s involved as by all accounts he was shot after being tackled.

Bad situation for all involved for sure, but I do think it is strange to not produce more details (at least fabricate something) if they are going to defend the officers actions.

They won't defend the officers actions because they will not be able to in law. They might try, but it won't work.

 

[darkboong]

I understand it was a misunderstanding, but the British goverment justifying it is pretty messed up. I mean if a cop unloads 7 rounds into someones head (1 in the shoulder) after he is already on the ground with two officers holding him down don't you think that cop may not be emotionally stable enough to continue in the same line of work?

It struck me as being excessive force. Bizarrely many people seem to think that two policemen holding a guy down while the third empties a clip into his head is a good thing. Check out the feedback on the BBC website, a lot of folks seem to approve of the prospect of being randomly gunned down while restrained by the police.

IMO it is a mistake to not admit excessive force by the officer/s involved as by all accounts he was shot after being tackled.

Let's face it : Guns give some people stiffies (just check out any gun prohibition thread), he had a big stiffie and he had to get his rocks off there and then.

Bad situation for all involved for sure, but I do think it is strange to not produce more details (at least fabricate something) if they are going to defend the officers actions.

I am pretty sure they would have fabricated something if that eye witness account was not published so quickly.

 

[Carrera]

Stephen Glover has a good go at this in today newspapers. I agree with his view it was essentially murder (or so it seems).
The only way it would have been justified is if they had seen some kind of belt or wires protruding from the man as he was running.
I don't think the Russians or Israelis would have handled things that way.

 

[wilmar13]

I am pretty sure they would have fabricated something if that eye witness account was not published so quickly.

Maybe they did fabricate one thing: I have read and heard many people talking about the "they followed him from a suspected house..." as being total BS. Don't know if this is true or not, and doubtful that unless an insider from the British forces comes forward to say it is BS it will ever be anything more than heresay. It probably depends more on what you want to believe than what really happened. Lets just say the way the UK is handling the situation is being percieved extremely negatively here in Brasil (buying off the family instead of punishing or even dealing with the actions of the officers).

I am going to lay out the ugly on the table and say (without condoning it) that if the victim was of Middle Eastern Islamic descent I would have more sympathy for the situation as a tragic mistake. But the guy was a Brazilian farmer from Minas Geras working (legally) to earn enough money to come back and start a cattle ranch... has no any ties to anyone involved in terroism, seems like more than tragic mistake to me. He was wearing a coat because to a Brazilian a nice summer day in London is chilly (no one will ride with me if it is below 18 deg C here because they think it is too cold... they wear coats when it is 20 deg). Assuming the story that they followed him from a suspect house after he met with suspect people is correct, it is clear the Police behaved in a manner that merits disciplinary action at the least. If he was just some guy with a coat that they stopped on the train and then shot because they were antsy... well that is scary on a whole different level to me. How would everyone in the UK feel if he was normal British electrician late for work shot like this? Would they still condone it as being necessary? Are they being blinded by the recent bombings?

To be clear I am not placing judgement, but it doesn't seem from most eye witness accounts that this guy even looked like a threat. What would everyone's reaction be if the truth was (and was presented as such) that he was some guy with a coat in the summer that walked by a couple of undercover officers in a train station, they tackled him, and then shot him in the head 7 times. Would everyone still buy off on the "regretable but necessary mistake" line?

 

[Batesy]

I mean if a cop unloads 7 rounds into someones head.

Five rounds, enough to completely incapacitate, can't take chances. Shoot until they stop moving.

... but geesh the poor guy is late for work, doesn't stop when a couple of guys in plain clothes ask him to (Who talks to Jehovahs Witnesses or salemen even when they aren't late), .

Jehovahs witnesses don't produce police warrant cards, they don't say "Stop, armed police." neither do they shout at you as you run away "Stop or we will open fire" or "This is your final warning, comply or we will shoot to kill" (or things of that general nature).
As a rule of thumb innocent people don't run away from police officers, they also don't hurdle ticket barriers. People running away from the police tend to head for exits, not towards crowded platforms with no way out.

and then is shot 8 times (7 in the head) .

Five times.

"Geesh we are really sorry, but we couldn't take a chance".

Different headline for you "SUICIDE BOMBER KILLS DOZENS, A suicide bomber detonated a device on a crowded tube earlier today killing dozens of commuters and three police officers who had pursued him"
If this was the headline, people would be asking "Why didn't they shoot him? Why did they allow him to detonate the bombs? Why didn't they suspect something when he ran away"



It is a terrible, terrible tragedy that probably could have been avoided. Either by the victim stopping when ordered to, or by the police taking the time to search the guy (time that they WOULDN'T have if he was a genuine terrorist).

A tragic situation which has occurred as a result of split-second decision making, based on the circumstances and information available to the officer at the time.

1) Large jacket, hot weather - suspicion one could have been allayed by the victim stopping and explaining he is used to hotter climates and showing officers he wasn't wired up...

2) Running away - people with nothing to hide generally don't tend to run away...

3) Failing to comply - if somebody tells me to stop or they will shoot at me and kill me I'd like to think I would stop. If I was in a foreign country and a guy in a bulletproof vest and police hat pointed a gun at me and shouted at me in a language I do not understand I would freeze and put my hands out.

4) Struggling to get his arms free - if I was being pinned down by two police officers I would more than likely stop writhing around, especially if the third one had a gun pointed at me.


I'm probably going to get caned for my opinions, but given the current social climate and the circumstances that were presented to the officer in a very short period of time, and the potential consequences of hesitation or inaction...

I'd have done the same, in fact I would probably have opened fire earlier, but such is the training of British Police that even though they are on a "shoot to kill" policy in such situations, they did not open fire until they were absolutely sure (this would be so much worse if they had shot him as soon as he had ran off).

 

[wilmar13]

Stephen Glover has a good go at this in today newspapers. I agree with his view it was essentially murder (or so it seems).
The only way it would have been justified is if they had seen some kind of belt or wires protruding from the man as he was running.
I don't think the Russians or Israelis would have handled things that way.

You know lets throw out the followed from a suspect house aspect (I am inclined to believe that is BS, and we don't know either way).

It is highly possible he did have some wires or something like that coming from his coat as he was an electrician rushing to deal with an alarm problem. He may not have spoke English well, and in the heat of things, if I were in the position of the officers I may have panicked as well. But I am an Engineer, not a Police Officer, and just as there is no way a police officer could do my job without a lot of training, I would like to think with sufficient training I would have had a clearer head (or at least been weeded out before this). Since niether is the case, and it is a clearly a major f#ck up, how can people feel safe knowing that this guy is still in a position he can't handle?

 

[wilmar13]

Five rounds, enough to completely incapacitate, can't take chances. Shoot until they stop moving.


Jehovahs witnesses don't produce police warrant cards, they don't say "Stop, armed police." neither do they shout at you as you run away "Stop or we will open fire" or "This is your final warning, comply or we will shoot to kill" (or things of that general nature).
As a rule of thumb innocent people don't run away from police officers, they also don't hurdle ticket barriers. People running away from the police tend to head for exits, not towards crowded platforms with no way out.


Five times.

Different headline for you "SUICIDE BOMBER KILLS DOZENS, A suicide bomber detonated a device on a crowded tube earlier today killing dozens of commuters and three police officers who had pursued him"
If this was the headline, people would be asking "Why didn't they shoot him? Why did they allow him to detonate the bombs? Why didn't they suspect something when he ran away"



It is a terrible, terrible tragedy that probably could have been avoided. Either by the victim stopping when ordered to, or by the police taking the time to search the guy (time that they WOULDN'T have if he was a genuine terrorist).

A tragic situation which has occurred as a result of split-second decision making, based on the circumstances and information available to the officer at the time.

1) Large jacket, hot weather - suspicion one could have been allayed by the victim stopping and explaining he is used to hotter climates and showing officers he wasn't wired up...

2) Running away - people with nothing to hide generally don't tend to run away...

3) Failing to comply - if somebody tells me to stop or they will shoot at me and kill me I'd like to think I would stop. If I was in a foreign country and a guy in a bulletproof vest and police hat pointed a gun at me and shouted at me in a language I do not understand I would freeze and put my hands out.

4) Struggling to get his arms free - if I was being pinned down by two police officers I would more than likely stop writhing around, especially if the third one had a gun pointed at me.


I'm probably going to get caned for my opinions, but given the current social climate and the circumstances that were presented to the officer in a very short period of time, and the potential consequences of hesitation or inaction...

I'd have done the same, in fact I would probably have opened fire earlier, but such is the training of British Police that even though they are on a "shoot to kill" policy in such situations, they did not open fire until they were absolutely sure (this would be so much worse if they had shot him as soon as he had ran off).

CNN, Routers, and several other sources I read said 7 in the head, one in the shoulder. 5 or 7 same difference, after the 1st shot don't you think?

Again it depends on whose story to want to believe. Many eyewitnesses claim the police officers were totally incognito, As far as what they said, I have had one run-in with police just like this (it was a mistake) and they yelled something like "stop Asshole" but it was unintelligible as it was yelled, my immediate reaction was to run like hell as a flee response (they were uniformed officers) and I was just out for a walk in my upper-middle class neighborhood in the US.

1)Yeah I agree, Brazilains are crazy and wear coats unless it is hot (unless it was 90deg or more that isn't hot).

2)This is BS, innocent people run all the time as police don't behave as you see on TV in the real world, but I agree it still adds to the buildup

3)Again, maybe you think you would but until you have some strange guy telling you you will be shot you may be surprised at how you react. Also you must understand even IF he knew it was police, cops in Brazil are often worse than the criminals so your perception of the police is different than the victims was (but again I agree adds to the buildup).

4)Come on man, people are standing on your arms, probably kicking your ass, your scared shitless, you don't know what is going on and you lie still... I totally understand what you are saying and do think it was a tough call for police, but don't kid yourself, you would have reacted the same way he did if you were in the same situation.

NO I understand where you are coming from, it was a mistake, but my point was that while we can understand how it happened and why each side behaved as it did, it doesn't change the fact that the officer's judgement is not very good and he is probably not the best choice for someone to be placed into this situation again. Like I said in the last post, while you or I may have reacted in the same manner, I would hope that those placed in this situation for a profesion would be better than that (or at least expected to be, and removed when proven not to be).

I think where people will differ on this is that you think you would have reacted differently and therefore the victim, contributed to his own demise. I think he acted just as most people would in the same situation and it was a tragedy that could have happened to anyone. The question is what would you think if this was your son/husband/father/brother/best freind/etc. who you knew to be of upstanding charachter (as he is well known to be in Brazil), would you still think it was a necessary accident (but the fault of the victim), or would you think it was an accident caused by someone with insuffiecient judgment and training for the task at hand?

 

[Carrera]

If they did see wires, then that would make me more sympathetic to the actions of the police officers. Given the situation of terrorist attacks taking place and the sight of a guy running towards a train, with wires maybe visible, it's a possible mistake to make.
However, if there was no signs of such wires and some opportunity to check his inner jacket for a bomb, I would say the officers need to be held to account or removed from duty.
Surely it would have been better, though, if the officers concerned were in uniform? This is my main gripe. After all, what would an American tourist do in a tube staion if he saw some guys shouting and running at him with guns? Run, I guess. And how would the U.S. have reacted if a U.S. citizen had been gunned down under such circumstances (by officers in plain clothes, not uniformed and visible as being connected to the law)?
I think that basically the U.S. would have raised holy hell and somebody's head over here would be rolling.
In New York the same thing may well have happened but the people wielding guns would have been in full uniform with badges.

You know lets throw out the followed from a suspect house aspect (I am inclined to believe that is BS, and we don't know either way).

It is highly possible he did have some wires or something like that coming from his coat as he was an electrician rushing to deal with an alarm problem. He may not have spoke English well, and in the heat of things, if I were in the position of the officers I may have panicked as well. But I am an Engineer, not a Police Officer, and just as there is no way a police officer could do my job without a lot of training, I would like to think with sufficient training I would have had a clearer head (or at least been weeded out before this). Since niether is the case, and it is a clearly a major f#ck up, how can people feel safe knowing that this guy is still in a position he can't handle?

 

[wilmar13]

If they did see wires, then that would make me more sympathetic to the actions of the police officers. Given the situation of terrorist attacks taking place and the sight of a guy running towards a train, with wires maybe visible, it's a possible mistake to make.
However, if there was no signs of such wires and some opportunity to check his inner jacket for a bomb, I would say the officers need to be held to account or removed from duty.
Surely it would have been better, though, if the officers concerned were in uniform? This is my main gripe. After all, what would an American tourist do in a tube staion if he saw some guys shouting and running at him with guns? Run, I guess. And how would the U.S. have reacted if a U.S. citizen had been gunned down under such circumstances (by officers in plain clothes, not uniformed and visible as being connected to the law)?
I think that basically the U.S. would have raised holy hell and somebody's head over here would be rolling.
In New York the same thing may well have happened but the people wielding guns would have been in full uniform with badges.

My point was that even without wires showing or anything else, the cops freaking out and taking him down doesn't seem out of line to me at all... but what does seem strange is that a loose cannon cop emptys his gun (5 rounds or as the press is stating 7 in the head and 1 in the shoulder) into the guy after he is already subdued and restrained by two other cops and no one thinks this is wrong, just an honest mistake. I am inclined to think the opposite of what was stated by another poster, and would be more understanding if they shot him while he was running, rather than after they had already restrained him. At least then it would be easier to swallow the "mistake" pill rather than the more likely hard-on with a gun description darkboon gave.

Just out of curiosity does this issue even matter to anyone or is it only a huge issue here in Brazil?

 

[darkboong]

Five rounds, enough to completely incapacitate, can't take chances. Shoot until they stop moving.

Two important points you are convieniently glossing over here :

1) When he was shot he was being held down by two *other* policemen. He was not in a position to do anything.
2) They were plain clothed policemen, for all he knew they could be gangsters. The manner in which he was executed was certainly more gangster style than police style.

As a rule of thumb innocent people don't run away from police officers, they also don't hurdle ticket barriers. People running away from the police tend to head for exits, not towards crowded platforms with no way out.

No, but people run away from shouting armed men in suits, innocent or otherwise. Regardless of his innocence or guilt the man deserved a trial, that is how justice *should* work in this country. As it stands it was little different from a yardie hit.

Different headline for you "SUICIDE BOMBER KILLS DOZENS, A suicide bomber detonated a device on a crowded tube earlier today killing dozens of commuters and three police officers who had pursued him"

How about this one "Batesy gets shot 5 times in the head while being held down by two police officers" ?

If this was the headline, people would be asking "Why didn't they shoot him? Why did they allow him to detonate the bombs? Why didn't they suspect something when he ran away"

Shooting a suicide bomber in a crowded tube station would be stupid. *IF* the guy was the real McCoy he would have detonated it as soon as he was challenged. Plenty of evidence to back that up, specifically the incident where the US claimed 27 kids were killed in Iraq (turns out that figure was very wrong anyway).

It is a terrible, terrible tragedy that probably could have been avoided. Either by the victim stopping when ordered to, or by the police taking the time to search the guy (time that they WOULDN'T have if he was a genuine terrorist).

Well, let me know what you did should you be challenged by a horde of dudes in mufti with firearms. See if you behave any differently. AFAICT the guy was trying to get into a situation where he could get away from a bunch of very dangerous people with firearms sky-high on adrenaline. I for one don't take orders from folks who fail to identify themselves clearly, and I ain't gonna hang around when a bunch of them pull firearms, regardless of whether I think I am innocent or not.

A tragic situation which has occurred as a result of split-second decision making, based on the circumstances and information available to the officer at the time.

It was not split second. The guy was held by two other officers as he was shot.

I'd have done the same, in fact I would probably have opened fire earlier, but such is the training of British Police that even though they are on a "shoot to kill" policy in such situations, they did not open fire until they were absolutely sure (this would be so much worse if they had shot him as soon as he had ran off).

That is because you are a pillock. Opening fire in busy tube station is plain stupid.

 

[Carrera]

To me it's a big issue same as it is to you guys in Brazil. The problem is the cops weren't in uniform. If several guys yelled at me holding guns (not being in uniform) I'd assume it was a criminal situation. I'd either run or violently resist by any means available (having been on the end of a gun before in Russia).
Speaking of Russia by the way, all police are in uniform or army gear. If they come after you, you know you should stop and who you're dealing with.
I'm sorry but this situation ain't good enough and there may even be a price to pay in tourism.
The reason so many shots were fired is low velocity arms were used so as not to endanger other people close by.
But in my view, Islamic style suicide bombing is a new experience in London and we should be using foreign security services to train our own anti-terror police. The best are probably the Israelis or maybe the Russians.

My point was that even without wires showing or anything else, the cops freaking out and taking him down doesn't seem out of line to me at all... but what does seem strange is that a loose cannon cop emptys his gun (5 rounds or as the press is stating 7 in the head and 1 in the shoulder) into the guy after he is already subdued and restrained by two other cops and no one thinks this is wrong, just an honest mistake. I am inclined to think the opposite of what was stated by another poster, and would be more understanding if they shot him while he was running, rather than after they had already restrained him. At least then it would be easier to swallow the "mistake" pill rather than the more likely hard-on with a gun description darkboon gave.

Just out of curiosity does this issue even matter to anyone or is it only a huge issue here in Brazil?

 

[darkboong]

But in my view, Islamic style suicide bombing is a new experience in London and we should be using foreign security services to train our own anti-terror police. The best are probably the Israelis or maybe the Russians.

The Russians have one soldier for every six Chechens in Chechnya (similar size to the US contingent in Iraq). They still let some slip though. The Israelis have resorted to attacking the most densely populated area on the planet with 1000lb bombs, Hellfire missiles, main battle tanks, and building an incredibly long wall.

It appears that neither the Russians or the Israelis offer a practical solution, let alone one that is just or capable of defeating the terrorists. Quite frankly they could spend their time more profitably nailing Jelly to their Apartheid Wall. The Berlin Wall was converted into souvenirs, and the Great Wall of China has been most valuable as a tourist attraction. I suspect that the Apartheid wall will go the same way.

Also you appear to have underestimated the experience gained from dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland, let alone other parts of the world, including Belize, Sierra Leone, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

 

[EoinC]

...Just out of curiosity does this issue even matter to anyone or is it only a huge issue here in Brazil?

This is a big issue and has received adverse publicity here in Malaysia. With the little that I have seen or read on this matter (BBC / CNN / Borneo Post Newspaper), Wilmar. I agree with you. The victim does not appear to have done anything that I would not have done in similar circumstances. Police Officers are trained to be good Police Officers - Victims are not trained to be good Victims.
I think your analysis has been well laid out. This incident is understandable, but not condonable.
I believe that the action was one of panic. Whilst we can expect the public to panic, there are very few gun-carrying police officers in the UK and, those who are at a level where they do 'pack heat' have (or should have) received a lot of training in recognising and controlling panic (both theirs and that of the perceived offender).
These Officers achieved the initial phase of containment when they pinned the victim to the ground. Their method of proceeding with the subduing phase should not have required multiple gunshots to the head of the victim.

 

[wilmar13]

The reason so many shots were fired is low velocity arms were used so as not to endanger other people close by.
But in my view, Islamic style suicide bombing is a new experience in London and we should be using foreign security services to train our own anti-terror police. The best are probably the Israelis or maybe the Russians.

"Armed officers are instructed to shoot at the head, not the chest, when facing a suspected suicide bomber, to disable them faster. The change follows advice from the Israeli police."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535246,00.html
I guess the Israelis forgot to say to disregard that if you already have him contained.

Also I noticed in this article that a "witness claimed they shot him 5 times", but CNN has said in all of its releases 8 times, and the news in Brazil has repeatedly said 7 times in the head, once in the shoulder, so that is where I got that from.

 

[wilmar13]

Their method of proceeding with the subduing phase should not have required multiple gunshots to the head of the victim.

Yeah, that is where I tend to lose sympathy for the cop side of this tragedy. Either way, it looks like there is a fair amount of pressure within the UK to get to the truth of what really happened and that they are really trying to determine if the cowboy cop that pulled the trigger is at fault, but in an attempt to be diplomatic and avoid any blame it was percieved very negatively here.

 

[Carrera]

There's a big misunderstanding in the West over the Chechnyan situation. The fact is Chechnyan terrorists began a campaign of terror against Moscow prior to Yeltsin's invasion of Chechnya - which went very badly at the time.
Prior to the invasion of Chechnya, there were organised bands of terrorists who specialised in kidnap of foreign businessmen and westerners. These folks would wind up with their fingers being cut off and sent to relatives for ransom. Or they'd be tortured and filmed on video. In fact, a group of British business men who went to Chechnya to do some contact work winded up being beheaded.
These were the first cases of Iraq style beheadings.
But the difference between Moscow and London is this: Moscow doesn't mess about with terrorists, which is why Putin cracked down hard - admittedly too hard in many cases. There was no option of allowing Chechnya to become separate, especially with Inhushetiya being somewhat unstable and the chance Russia could break apart (with all its WMD).
There was a film on channel four you should have watched and might have found interesting. It concerned the Beslan hostage crisis. Here you had a bunch of Islamic nutters who wired up a school with bombs and denied water to the children they had captured.
Russian celebrities or even parents offered to be taken hostage in exchange for the children but these pleas were refused. When the Spetsnaz moved in, the terrorists opened fire on the children and you could see dehydrated, terrified children fleeing the school for their lives. It was absolute carnage.
Not too long ago when I returned from Russia to the U.K. I actually met supporters of these radical Chechnyan groups - one was living on benefits in the U.K. I was horrified. So, just like the President of Pakistan, U.S. security personnel, the French and even the Saudis, I think the U.K. has to stop providing a safe haven for these religious fanatics who preach hate and murder. There is too much sympathy in this country for these nutters and we should be deporting their asses.
Otherwise, more innocent tourists such as the poor guy from Brazil will get caught up in sticky situations and panic by the police.

The Russians have one soldier for every six Chechens in Chechnya (similar size to the US contingent in Iraq). They still let some slip though. The Israelis have resorted to attacking the most densely populated area on the planet with 1000lb bombs, Hellfire missiles, main battle tanks, and building an incredibly long wall.

It appears that neither the Russians or the Israelis offer a practical solution, let alone one that is just or capable of defeating the terrorists. Quite frankly they could spend their time more profitably nailing Jelly to their Apartheid Wall. The Berlin Wall was converted into souvenirs, and the Great Wall of China has been most valuable as a tourist attraction. I suspect that the Apartheid wall will go the same way.

Also you appear to have underestimated the experience gained from dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland, let alone other parts of the world, including Belize, Sierra Leone, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

 

[Carrera]

Tom Gross in the Jerusalem Post writes:
‘Had Israeli police shot dead an innocent foreigner on one of its buses or trains, confirming the kill with a barrage of bullets at close range in a mistaken effort to thwart a bombing, the UN would probably have been sitting in emergency session by late afternoon to unanimously denounce the Jewish state. By evening, 12 hours had passed since the shooting, but the BBC still hadn't interviewed a grieving family..As for London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who is in overall control of transport in the city, including the train where the man was shot, and who strongly defended the shoot-to-kill policy as a legitimate way to prevent suicide bombings, he was not yet facing war crimes charges – as Livingstone himself has demanded Israeli political leaders should be....This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others describe the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists."'

 

[darkboong]

There's a big misunderstanding in the West over the Chechnyan situation. The fact is Chechnyan terrorists began a campaign of terror against Moscow prior to Yeltsin's invasion of Chechnya - which went very badly at the time.

My point remains, the Russian technique ain't working.

 

[darkboong]

Tom Gross in the Jerusalem Post writes:
‘Had Israeli police shot dead an innocent foreigner on one of its buses or trains, confirming the kill with a barrage of bullets at close range in a mistaken effort to thwart a bombing, the UN would probably have been sitting in emergency session by late afternoon to unanimously denounce the Jewish state.

The thing is : The Israelis have a habit of doing this, it ain't an isolated incident. The ISM victims were in an entirely different situation, one where they were passive and were shot/run over without posing any threat perceived or otherwise to the heavily armed soldiers. Hell, they were facing down APCs with nothing but a visi-vest.