London Underground shut down

[Sissyfoo]

Exactly.
You don't shoot someone in the head to injure them.
Imo the guy deserved what he got for being a cock and running. I'm in London for a couple of days, and I will be very suspect of any arab types carrying large bags or wearing big coats, fact.

Hey, why not just deport everyone who isn't caucasian? That will solve all your xenophobia problems! For added security we could also strip them naked so you don't have to worry about any bombs being concealed in baggy clothing as they board the first boat out of england.

...jerk.

 

[Tom]

Bit strong of Yuck to say he deserved it, but I agree if I spot any olive-skinned chaps with rucksacks I'll be mindful of the possible consequences.

Is that racist? I guess so, as I'm stereotying terrorists in this country as not caucasian. Fuck it, who cares.

 

[adams901]

werent they armed plain clothes police?

(if so then i dont blame him! i would have legged it too if some thug looking guy comes waving a gun at me )

As mentioned before its a shame it happened but its better safe than sorry.

If someone pulled a gun on me I sure as shit wouldn't run, Unfortunatly I can't out run bullets and if the person was going to shoot me I am sure they would have no problem with shooting me in the back as I ran away.

I think most people will suspect anyone carrying a large package onto a bus or train, I had to take a large brown box to the post office a couple of days after the 1st bombing, even I was getting some funny looks from people on the bus.

 

[Ukle]

2 down / 2+ to go ...

Oval Bomber reported caught in Notting Hill(Expecting this page to be updated soon)

 

[Tom]

Erm, not until they've been through the legal process and found guilty TBH. Then you can say 'the police got them'.

 

[Furr]

How many peope have they arrested now??? seems like quite alot... Maybe because this so called covenant has been broken the police are getting all those they suspect might dangerous as there is no so called security anymore?

Have to admit when i heard that was the so called way things worked that you let them live here as long as they dont carry out any attacks was only asking for trouble.

 

[Ukle]

Change that looks like they got all 4 ... 4th one was caught in Italy.

 

[Louster]

I just found a decent thread of a guy who'd googled for eyewitness reports. It makes a fairly interesting read, and makes the point rather well that all you people jumping to conclusions are, like, kinda crazy, y'know?

See it here.

 

[dysfunction]

That doesnt add anything new to whats been written here already...and many of the points he has raised have been raised here as well...

 

[Louster]

What? The point is it's a summary of a load of eyewitness reports which often and clearly contradict one another.

 

[Tom]

The only summary of events worth paying attention to will be at an official inquiry.

I trust a panel of professionals more than I trust the internet tbh.

 

[Louster]

The only summary of events worth paying attention to will be at an official inquiry.

I trust a panel of professionals more than I trust the internet tbh.

This seems to be referencing my post, and I can't understand, if this is the case, why you appear to be arguing with me? Have you even read the link or understood my point? I'm basically saying what you're saying.

 

[Tom]

I read the link, and got bored.

 

[Louster]

Clearly you got bored reading my post as well then, given that I never mentioned a "summary of events", but that's understandable. I mean, it's rare that anyone actually takes the 'Read, Comprehend, Post' maxim to heart.

 

[nath]

Clearly you got bored reading my post as well then, given that I never mentioned a "summary of events", but that's understandable. I mean, it's rare that anyone actually takes the 'Read, Comprehend, Post' maxim to heart.

Yeah man, I love maxim too. nuff fit birds in it.

 

[dysfunction]

What? The point is it's a summary of a load of eyewitness reports which often and clearly contradict one another.

which clearly makes none of them very reliable now does it?

So if none of the eye witnesses are reliable then you are not going to the real truth are you? So you really end up with a whole lot of supposing just like whats been going on in this thread....

 

[Louster]

which clearly makes none of them very reliable now does it?

So if none of the eye witnesses are reliable then you are not going to the real truth are you?

Dur-hur, I sure enjoy having people argue with me without realising they're making the exact same point I am.

So you really end up with a whole lot of supposing just like whats been going on in this thread....

Nope. Most of what's going on in this thread isn't "supposing". Most of it is "asserting opinions as truth". Hence the need to show that nothing we have to go on is reliable.

 

[dysfunction]

Nope. Most of what's going on in this thread isn't "supposing". Most of it is "asserting opinions as truth".

No its not...you just havent realised it yet...

 

[Louster]

Heh, no, seriously. Take one of the most recent posts as an example, then.

As mentioned before its a shame it happened but its better safe than sorry.

If someone pulled a gun on me I sure as shit wouldn't run, Unfortunatly I can't out run bullets and if the person was going to shoot me I am sure they would have no problem with shooting me in the back as I ran away.

"it's a shame it happened but its better safe than sorry" - yes, this is an opinion, but it's an opinion built on information he obviously considers factual - otherwise his opinion would have been nowhere near as firmly worded. I don't mean to pick on adams here, just this is basically what everyone other than myself, Tom and nath have been doing, I think.
I don't really want to get into an argument over semantics, but it's pretty clear that virtually nobody is particularly interested in forming an unbiased or rational opinion. But, as mentioned already, that's probably human nature. I'm simply pointing out that I consider it wrong, and I'm stubborn enough that I apparently keep dragging up this same shit in response to half-hearted posts such as yours.

 

[dysfunction]

Lets put a few facts down then shall we...

1. There was an attempted suicide bombing in London.
2. A guy that looked suspicious was running away from armed men into a tube station
3. These armed men ran after him and shot him 7 times in the head.
4. These armed men were in actual fact the police.

right now with adams statement that

its a shame it happened but its better safe than sorry

sounds pretty reasonable to me in light of the above. As you have mentioned before its an opinion....thats all it is. It doesnt appear unbiased or irrational to me....


edit: my half hearted posts are cos I cant be bothered repeating the same old thing over and over again. You on the otherhand seem to enjoy it.

 

[Louster]

Lets put a few facts down then shall we...

1. There was an attempted suicide bombing in London.
2. A guy that looked suspicious was running away from armed men into a tube station
3. These armed men ran after him and shot him 7 times in the head.
4. These armed men were in actual fact the police.

I potentially disagree on the all-important "fact" number 2. Firstly, "guy that looked suspicious" depends on what he looked like, and how you define "suspicious". Again, the eye-witness accounts disagree on this. Clearly the police felt, rightly or wrongly, that he warranted following, but this "rightly or wrongly" part needs to be established, for one thing.
Secondly, it's not known whether he actually knew they were armed, which affects whether the police were acting within the law/protocol.

The "facts", as far as I know, can be summarised, actually, like this.

1. The police are on a heightened state of alert after recent terrorist bombings.
2. Jean Charles de Menezes exits his block of flats, which is under surveillance.
3. A number of officers trail Menezes.
4. Menezes gets on a bus which deposits him near Stockwell tube station.
5. There is some sort of confrontation between the police and Menezes.
6. Menezes runs into the station and on to a train, whereupon he's shot dead.

I'm not sure that much more can be said to be "fact" at this point. For instance, the nature of the confrontation cannot be clarified, and neither can the reasons for the decision to trail him. Without all the facts, there really is no way that adams' judgement can be said to be "reasonable", as it's a judgement of whether or not the actions taken were right - something we can't know without the aforementioned details.

edit: my half hearted posts are cos I cant be bothered repeating the same old thing over and over again. You on the otherhand seem to enjoy it.

It takes two to tango, sirrah.

 

[dysfunction]

But its an opinion!!! ffs!!!!

Who are you to say its not reasonable and justified? Thats your opinion....which you have now stated as though its a fact...

so sirrah!

 

[Louster]

I'm saying it's not possible to be reasonable or justified, in this case, given the absolute lack of reliable evidence to base opinions on thus far. You appear to be arguing that forming opinions (and then expressing them as fact) based on information which is clearly not fact is a reasonable and justifiable thing to do.

We haven't even progressed to the point where this can be a subjective issue to debate, which is the requisite for forming an opinion. Taking unreliable information as fact is the worst way of forming an argument, let alone an opinion.

I'm basically saying that, if he attempted to justify his opinion, he would find that all the evidence he would need to cite would be severely unreliable, and likely be contradicted in at least one other, equally unreliable place. Hence it is an unreasonable and unjustifiable opinion. Much like the rest of this thread.

Edit: hands up who's getting sick of this yet? I think I should've paid more attention to nath than dys.

 

[dysfunction]

I'm saying it's not possible to be reasonable or justified, in this case, given the absolute lack of reliable evidence to base opinions on thus far. You appear to be arguing that forming opinions (and then expressing them as fact) based on information which is clearly not fact is a reasonable and justifiable thing to do.

We haven't even progressed to the point where this can be a subjective issue to debate, which is the requisite for forming an opinion. Taking unreliable information as fact is the worst way of forming an argument, let alone an opinion.

I'm basically saying that, if he attempted to justify his opinion, he would find that all the evidence he would need to cite would be severely unreliable, and likely be contradicted in at least one other, equally unreliable place. Hence it is an unreasonable and unjustifiable opinion. Much like the rest of this thread.

Edit: hands up who's getting sick of this yet? I think I should've paid more attention to nath than dys.

ffs man. I cant believe you leave your mind void of having any opinion on anything until you have 100% of all the facts!!

When an event happens you can form an opinion immediately...like if I met you for the first time I could have the opinion your'e a twonk!

And as further time and "evidence" arises I could still think you're a twonk. Or I could change my mind and think you're an argumentative bastd...

The fact remains people form opinions. they dont hang around and wait for someone to say. There now you have all the facts make your opinion now..GO!!

It doesnt work that way damnit!!

 

[nath]

However people often word these opinions as though they had based them on more than the facts that were available. People often come off as cantankerous and a bit obnoxious - that's what Lousters taking issue with I think. I'd like to say it's just this communication medium (internet message boards) that brings it out in people, but I think most people are just total wankers whose opinions once made are totally unflexible.

 

[Catsby]

Catsby aplauds pointless internet arguements.

 

[Will]

<digs up old thread>

Leak disputes original statement.

 

[TdC]

ohoh, that's going to end badly I fear

 

[Marc]

Leaked report to itv news last night. The guy they shot dead wasnt ID'd properly upon leaving his flat cos the copper doing surveillance was taking a piss. The guy they were looking for was dark skinned, the guy they shot dead was white. He didnt hurdle over the ticket things as the police claimed, he used his ticket to get through and even had time to pick up a newspaper!. He didnt run away from police, he had actually took his seat on the train. He wasnt wearing a padded jacket as claimed by the police, he was wearing a denim jacket. An unarmed police man approached him in his seat and restrained him. Then the armed police turn up, throw the unarmed copper to the side and pump the brazilian full of lead.

Our police rock!

 

[Ukle]

If that account is true there is no way that was normal police it has to be the anti terrorist unit SRR who work for MI5 and MI6.