Is anyone else sick of the de Menezes case?

[poppins 10]

It's very telling that you sad Muslim apologists will stamp your feet, scream and launch into a relentless anti-police tirade over the unfortunate death of one man.

 

But when people are blown to pieces on tubes and buses and the entire country is threatened by the cancer of Islamic extremism you become strangely quiet and instead start waffling about American foreign policy and how "we had it coming".

 

Instead of droning on and on about the De Menezes shooting, let's hear you come out and condemn the scum who would destroy our community from within.

 

Oh! Muffin Man, how true, every word of it

[Kingmaker2 10]

It's very telling that you sad Muslim apologists will stamp your feet, scream and launch into a relentless anti-police tirade over the unfortunate death of one man.

 

But when people are blown to pieces on tubes and buses and the entire country is threatened by the cancer of Islamic extremism you become strangely quiet and instead start waffling about American foreign policy and how "we had it coming".

 

Instead of droning on and on about the De Menezes shooting, let's hear you come out and condemn the scum who would destroy our community from within.

 

In case you hadn't noticed this thread has the De Menezes shooting as it central theme not the 7/7 attacks.

It doesn't take a genius to work out, that within this thread we would be talking about Jean Charles De Menezes, rather than the 7/7 bombings.

 

I for one condemned the 7 July attacks at the time they occurred, as had many here no doubt.

 

Your argument is an intellectually weak one, suggesting that If you think the Metropolitan police made a major foul up in costing an innocent person's life,then you must be a apologist for the 7th of July terrorists.

 

I wonder had the Metropolitan police "accidentally" killed one of your family or friends, whether you would simply pass it off as an innocent mistake that noone should be held accountable for:?:

[Muffin Man 10]

What's wrong, precisely, with muslim apologists? You use the term perjoratively.

 

If you don't think a mistake was made here, let's hear you say it, whilst we're on the subject of stamping our feet and demanding other people say things.

 

 

Yes of course a mistake was made, that goes without saying. But that's all it was, an unfortunate mistake. Get over it.

 

The murders of all those people on 7/7 by British Muslims was NOT a mistake. It was planned.

 

And why exactly would you want to apologise for the actions of Muslims when they hate everything about the west (except the benefit system, presumably)?

[olorin 10]

Yes of course a mistake was made, that goes without saying. But that's all it was, an unfortunate mistake. Get over it.

 

The murders of all those people on 7/7 by British Muslims was NOT a mistake. It was planned.

 

And why exactly would you want to apologise for the actions of Muslims when they hate everything about the west (except the benefit system, presumably)?

 

Is that some Muslims or all of them? There are three that I know of in our office - they all came over here on visa's because we couldn't find anyone in the UK to do the work, they are the politest and friendliest people knowing and they think that the UK is great. I'm fairly certain they never touched the benefit system.

 

What you have to realise is that Muslim fundmentalists are to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity - a nasty lethal little aberration on the side that the mainstream rejects utterly without excuse.

[Kingmaker2 10]

Yes of course a mistake was made, that goes without saying. But that's all it was, an unfortunate mistake. Get over it.

 

The point is that a whole string of mistakes were made, not just one, even before Jean Charles entered Stockwell station.

If you read this thread many have already been outline but just to sum up:

 

Not all of the surveillance team were issused with photos of the suspect.

 

Exits weren't routinely watch 24/7 despite over 42 officers assigned to the operation.

 

Jean Charles was allowed to board 2 buses even after they suspected he was a terrorist.

 

Jean Charles was allowed to enter Stockwell tube station, even after he discovered that Brixton tube station was closed.

 

Despite police claims and Ian Blair's claim, that the police shouted for Denezes to stop, before he entered Stockwell station, no other witnesses examined in other investigations have confirmed hearing any shouts coming from the police.

 

The Metropolitan police claimed that no CCTV footage inside Stockwell station existed ,due to faulty CCTV recording equipment, but this was denied by London Underground, who said that the Metropolitan policed had siezed the CCTV tapes.

We now know that the video footage did indeed exist,and that the Metropolitan police had lied about the existence of the tapes.

[Muffin Man 10]

What you have to realise is that Muslim fundmentalists are to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity - a nasty lethal little aberration on the side that the mainstream rejects utterly without excuse.

 

That's patently untrue. I challenge you to find a single Muslim (no matter how peaceful he purports to be) who does not feel a stronger bond with his "Muslim brothers" in other parts of the world than he does with this country and its people.

 

In Islam, religion comes before all - nationality included. Muslims who were born in Britain feel a stronger bond with people they've never met in Iraq and Afghanistan than they do with non-Muslim Britons simply because of a shared religion.

 

That being so, they then feel it's OK to hate America and all it stands for and if not exactly actively support terrorism against the USA and its allies (Britain included) then at the very least they believe that America and Britain "had it coming" (a chilling phrase we read all too often on this forum) when extremists carry out their evil deeds.

 

You have to ask the question, why would someone born (or resident) in Britain feel the need to (verbally or militarily) defend strangers half a world away at the expense of their fellow countrymen?

 

We all know the answer to that though, don't we?

[olorin 10]

You are building a strawman argument there. Regardless of how they feel about their muslim brothers (and why not? I'd probably feel more brotherhood with Christians back in my home country if I went and lived in say Nepal for a while) it still doesn't mean that they subscribe to the actions of the fundamentalists, any more than a Christian or Jew who moved abroad would support the actions of the KKK for example.

[jamescfc 10]

Yes of course a mistake was made, that goes without saying. But that's all it was, an unfortunate mistake. Get over it.

 

The murders of all those people on 7/7 by British Muslims was NOT a mistake. It was planned.

 

And why exactly would you want to apologise for the actions of Muslims when they hate everything about the west (except the benefit system, presumably)?

 

De Menezes was not killed by mistake and Muslims were not responsible for 7/7.

 

Check the real evidence and not what you are fed by your leaders through the controlled media. Look at all the cover ups re De Menezes (lies, stories and doctored photographs - even this was reported in the mainstream media). AND if they can lie so much about this, why not 7/7? Your enemy is far greater than Muslims.

 

watch "ripple effect 7 7" on youtube. Evidence you will not see presented clearly in the mainstream media. And no wonder.

[Zamo 10]

The police are not empowered to conduct summary executions of terror suspects on the streets. Their job is to arrest them, charge them and gather evidence for a prosecution. Only when there is a real threat to body or soul are they permitted to use deadly force. And when they do, they need to justify the decision.

 

So let's look at the decision to kill.

 

All of the firearm officers on the ground will have been trained to assess risk before taking the decision to shoot someone. The sort of questions they'd have been asking themselves would include:

 

Is there a weapon visible? No.

Is there a bag that a bomb could be in? No.

Is he wearing heavy clothing that could be concealing a bomb? No.

Is he acting suspiciously (twitchy, nervous, sweating, agitated etc)? No.

Is he trying to get away (leaping barriers, making a run for an exit)? No.

Do we have a positive ID? No.

 

Based on the same evidence that the officers on the ground had I cannot see how a summary execution can be justified. We must either get a satisfactory explanation or the person/s who took the decision to kill (and all those involved in the subsequent cover up) need to be held accountable. We must not tolerate a police force or government that wants to be unaccountable.

[cressida 1,570]

The police are not empowered to conduct summary executions of terror suspects on the streets. Their job is to arrest them, charge them and gather evidence for a prosecution. Only when there is a real threat to body or soul are they permitted to use deadly force. And when they do, they need to justify the decision.

 

So let's look at the decision to kill.

 

All of the firearm officers on the ground will have been trained to assess risk before taking the decision to shoot someone. The sort of questions they'd have been asking themselves would include:

 

Is there a weapon visible? No.

Is there a bag that a bomb could be in? No.

Is he wearing heavy clothing that could be concealing a bomb? No.

Is he acting suspiciously (twitchy, nervous, sweating, agitated etc)? No.

Is he trying to get away (leaping barriers, making a run for an exit)? No.

Do we have a positive ID? No.

 

Based on the same evidence that the officers on the ground had I cannot see how a summary execution can be justified. We must either get a satisfactory explanation or the person/s who took the decision to kill (and all those involved in the subsequent cover up) need to be held accountable. We must not tolerate a police force or government that wants to be unaccountable.

 

You have it right Zamo:thumbsup:

[Tricky 10]

... I cannot see how a summary execution can be justified...

 

Interesting choice of words, and correct in my view.

 

If you shut out all the noise about Muslim attacks and extremism and war on terror, what happened here?

 

A guy was kept under surveillance, tailed across London and then executed and then the evidence was destroyed and falsified. Why?

 

The only question in my mind is whether De Menezes was the intended target.

 

Oh, and Hague announces an enquiry into war in Iraq and Boris slings out Sir Ian Blair. Looks like the Tories don't believe the official line on the War on Terror either.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Yes of course a mistake was made,that goes without saying.

Why does anything go without saying?

...

And why exactly would you want to apologise for the actions of Muslims when they hate everything about the west (except the benefit system, presumably)?

I never intimated any such thing.

 

&

 

That's not what an apologist is.