The news this morning that a 'suspected suicide bomber' had been shot dead at
a London train station and that other house raids had resulted in individuals
being shot to death by police has been received with barely a mumur of questioning
as to who these individuals were and why police needed to use deadly force.
is now quoting Sky News in saying that the man shot five times at Stockwell
was not one of the would-be suicide bombers who attempted to detonate bombs
on Thursday and whose CCTV photos have been released.
Experts told the BBC
that the shooting was likely carried out by special forces, although eyewitnesses
also said police were involved in the pursuit.
The man was pursued, tripped, pushed to the ground and then shot five times
in the torso area. If the police and special forces pursuing the man knew he
had a bomb that he was potentially about to detonate then why would they risk
setting the bomb off by shooting at it?
BBC quoted Roy Ramm, former Met Police specialist operations commander, as
"The fact is that when you're dealing with suicide bombers they only way
you can stop them effectively - and protect yourself - is to try for a head-shot,"
Former government intelligence analyst Crispin Black agreed there was no other
way of stopping someone who was an "immediate threat to life".
So here we can establish that if the police suspect this guy had a bomb strapped
to him, they would go for a head shot. Therefore we can conclude that the police
knew he didn't have a bomb so they shot him in the stomach and chest area.
So then why does BBC contradict itself by quoting Professor Michael Clarke,
professor of defence studies at King's College London, as saying,
"The fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone
the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him."
Excuse me? We were just told that the only safe way to deal with a suicide
bomber is to go for a head shot, otherwise you run a high risk of setting the
bomb off. But now they flip it 180 degrees and tell us the opposite, that they
were right to shoot in the area where the explosives would be. This doesn't
make any sense.
This is a blatant attempt to justify the cold blooded pursuit and murder of
a man that was not one of the suspected suicide bombers involved in yesterday's
attacks and a man who the police knew did not have explosives strapped to his
body, which is why they shot him in the torso area.
And what of the witness reports of a bomb belt and wires coming out of the
man's jacket? They seem to have been swept under the rug. The modus operandi
is simple. Put out the story that this guy was a suicide bomber with wires hanging
off him about to blow a train up and the public have no problem in accepting
the response of the police in killing him. The later retraction that he was
not a suicide bomber goes under the radar as the British population prepares
to go on a Friday night drink binge or curl up and fester in front of the television.
So these are the new rules we have to live our lives by? If you're late for
the bus or train and are seen running then the police can just mow you down
no questions asked?
If, as in the case of this individual, you're wearing a heavy coat on a relatively
hot day (and it certainly hasn't been as hot today in England as it was last
week) then that's also a sure fire sign that you're about to blow yourself up?
What about people from scorching hot climates who haven't adapted to the British
weather? What Brits call hot, someone from Pakistan would call mild.
It appears that law enforcement has been granted the same powers as President
Bush. If the suspect is defined as an enemy combatant or a terrorist they can
be located and killed on the spot. No evidence, no trial, no questions asked.
The British public needs to ask serious questions about who is really behind
these bombings and what these outrageous new police abuses mean for the future
of freedom in this country.