EXPLOSIONS IN LONDON - COULD BE TERRORIST ATTACK!

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:49 pm

Dixie wrote:The police made a mistake?????????????????????????

OK first of all, I don't think it's the police who should have taken the decision to kill that person. Why couldn't just get him and put him in prison??

And second, if the police shot an innocent man, they should be punished as well. Ask that man's families! What do they think it's best?

Geez.

It is absolutely shocking! There is a very little information here at the moment to determine why this happened! I suppose they are still investigating it. DANYET's comments are correct though "normally they don't carry guns". They usually only have batons. I don't know why the police thought this man was a risk/ or had a bomb!

Does anyone else have any further information?

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:51 pm

danyet wrote:
Dixie wrote:The police made a mistake?????????????????????????

OK first of all, I don't think it's the police who should have taken the decision to kill that person. Why couldn't just get him and put him in prison??

And second, if the police shot an innocent man, they should be punished as well. Ask that man's families! What do they think it's best?

Geez.
This is a tradgedy of course. English police do not usually carry guns. Police are allowed to shoot if they believe that lives are at risk. Usually they would have tackeled the man but they thought that this man had a detonation device and could set off his bomb at an instant. I believe the man was shot in the head in order to shut down the nervous system.

The question is "Why did they think that he had a detonater."?

Very true I know that the normal "Bobbies" don't. I'm not sure about under-cover detectives though. Apparently Detectives were involved in this case and carried out the act. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of this. What sort of intelligence / or lack of it, created this situation.

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:06 pm

It appears from reports we are receiving here that the British police and security agents are making incredible inroads into capturing those involved in the recent terrorist attacks in London. My latest report was that they have arrested four suspects and are trying to arrange for the extradition of one suspect from Italy.

It is encouraging, as it sends a message to those who wish to take this sort of action that they are unable to hide.

:D :D

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:24 pm

Dixie wrote:The police made a mistake?????????????????????????

OK first of all, I don't think it's the police who should have taken the decision to kill that person. Why couldn't just get him and put him in prison??

And second, if the police shot an innocent man, they should be punished as well. Ask that man's families! What do they think it's best?

Geez.

I know this is horrible and the fact that the man wasn't a bomber has now come to light which makes the whole thing worse. I think at the time the police believed that he was carrying a bomb and was going to detonate it. That is why they shot him as capture was classified as too risky to the public (as suicide bombers generally will detonate the bomb, before capture). The whole thing is terrible! The police will have to be very careful not to over-react and the intelligence has to be spot on.

Imagine how the police involved feel too; knowing now that the man wasn't a bomber! They are following instructions in connection with national security! They are doing their jobs so to speak...

These are the sorts of tragedies that come about after terrorist attacks as countries are trying to protect the public...

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:42 am

I have heard some brief news that more suspected terrorist involved in the London bombings have been arrested today (Sat 6th August, 2005).

Has anyone been more diligent with their news coverage? I don't know anymore specifics about it. There just seems to be so many people involved.

mr_Love · Post by **mr_Love** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:07 pm

i dint heared about it yet!!!!!1

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:41 pm

mr_Love wrote:i dint heared about it yet!!!!!1

I have an update!

British police charged two more prime suspects on Sunday in connection with failed attempts to bomb Londons transport system on July 21. Ibrakim Mukter Said, 27 and Ramzi Mohammed, 23.

On Saturday Yassin Hassan Omar, 24 and Manpo Kwaku Asiedu, 32, were charged with attempted murder (plus other charges).

I think the charges on Yassin and Manpo were from the first London bombings. The attack that derailed the London underground.

sallak · Post by **sallak** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:01 pm

mr_Love wrote:i was shoked when i saw the news in " AL-Jassera TV "
..

it's al jazeera means " the island
http://www.aljazeera.net

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:55 am

sallak wrote:
mr_Love wrote:i was shoked when i saw the news in " AL-Jassera TV "
..
it's al jazeera means " the island
http://www.aljazeera.net

Do you know why they would give them self a name like Island?

:?

sallak · Post by **sallak** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:29 pm

[/quote]shazzam1452 Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sallak wrote:
mr_Love wrote:
i was shoked when i saw the news in " AL-Jassera TV "
..

it's al jazeera means " the island
http://www.aljazeera.net

Do you know why they would give them self a name like Island?

if u look at the map, the area in which u find saudia arabia, and other countrioes like uae, yemen, oman, ....
this is called jazeera
meaning
aljazeera channel is reffereing to its arabic origin

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:56 pm

sallak wrote:

shazzam1452 Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sallak wrote:
mr_Love wrote:
i was shoked when i saw the news in " AL-Jassera TV "
..

it's al jazeera means " the island
http://www.aljazeera.net

Do you know why they would give them self a name like Island?

if u look at the map, the area in which u find saudia arabia, and other countrioes like uae, yemen, oman, ....
this is called jazeera
meaning
aljazeera channel is reffereing to its arabic origin[/quote]

Wow thankyou so much I will. :D You learn something new everyday on English Club! 8)

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:54 pm

Al Jazeera television has reportedly received a video tape in which al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the London bombings. The video tape also contains the Will of one of the suicide bombers (Mohammad Sidique Khan) in which he blames the recent attacks on Britian's support of the war in Iraq.

Al Jazeera said the tape also included comments from Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to the affect that there will be more destruction.

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:45 am

The most profound development is the sudden need of the British and others to assert what it means to be British, Australian, or some other nationality. In the face of the Islamist challenge, historic identities taken for granted must now be explained and codified.
This can be seen on a diurnal level, where Islamist assertion has provoked a new European willingness in recent months to stand up for historic customs — as seen by the banning of burqas in Italy, requiring a German school boy to attend co-ed swimming classes, and making male applicants for Irish citizenship renounce polygamy. When a ranking Belgian politician cancelled lunch with an Iranian group after it demanded that alcohol not be present, his spokesman helpfully explained that "You can't force the authorities of Belgium to drink water."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/p ... 08_30.php3

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:22 am

danyet wrote:The most profound development is the sudden need of the British and others to assert what it means to be British, Australian, or some other nationality. In the face of the Islamist challenge, historic identities taken for granted must now be explained and codified.
This can be seen on a diurnal level, where Islamist assertion has provoked a new European willingness in recent months to stand up for historic customs — as seen by the banning of burqas in Italy, requiring a German school boy to attend co-ed swimming classes, and making male applicants for Irish citizenship renounce polygamy. When a ranking Belgian politician cancelled lunch with an Iranian group after it demanded that alcohol not be present, his spokesman helpfully explained that "You can't force the authorities of Belgium to drink water."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/p ... 08_30.php3

that is like asking the british to take a shower, or an Australian to stop drinking beer isn't it. But there is some sense to me in Countries retaining their identity for the civilians. 8)

Shazzam · Post by **Shazzam** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:09 am

Tonight I realised whilst reviewing some posts that the reason the English Government handled the recent terrorist acts with such efficiency is because they have been dealing with terrorist acts for decades. People seem to forget about the IRA (Irish Republican Army).

This week in Ireland the streets of Belfast have looked like a battlefield. Just when the people of the British Isles thought that the terror was over with once and for all (with the recent ceasefire by the IRA). However it would appear that the prodistans (Church of England) has risen again. There were petrol bombs etc.

I can't confirm for sure that this is the group (as no one has taken responsibility) but these are the reports that are reaching our shores.