I notice Nick Tosspot on five was calling them "Homocide bombers" "because i don't agree with the term sucicide bombers". Clearly the prat has been force fed too much fox than even he can handle
Nick who? I'm at work during the day so I don't get to see it.
I notice Nick Tosspot on five was calling them "Homocide bombers" "because i don't agree with the term sucicide bombers". Clearly the prat has been force fed too much fox than even he can handle
This "homicide bomber" term seems similar to those who object to the terms "joyriding" and "happy slapping" because obviously there is no happiness or joy for the victims. However these terms describe the motivation of the perpatrator, i.e kicks, and have largely stuck. I doubt homicide bomber will catch on as has been pointed out already, all bombs with the intent to kill are homicide bombs, and most people wouldnt have a clue what you were on about.
Yep - Homicide bomber is a term promoted by the White House, and used by Fox News (I think they may use the phrase suicide bomber when there are no other deaths apart from the bomber - but if any one else is killed they use homicide.) No other mainstream US news broadcaster uses the term - as to many it is less clear than suicide bomber.
People who spot these men or know who they are are advised not to approach them directly, but instead to call 999 or the Anti Terrorist hotline on 0800 789 321.
People who spot these men or know who they are are advised not to approach them directly, but instead to call 999 or the Anti Terrorist hotline on 0800 789 321.
I don't see why its not necessary. Its about the London bombings.
Ive had this discussion before with another member about the posting of threads to break news rather than to discuss the presentation of the news.. Basically, my point and opinion was that this forum is to discuss the actual presentation of the news, not the news itself. Obviously at times, there may be a crossover, but in this case, how is showing pictures of the bombers related to the presentation? Did presentation change in order to show the pictures? The answer is no and so I believe it is not relevant to this forum, but it could be discussed in the Lounge. We all have access to the net and news bulletins/channels, so why post the actual news in here when we can get our facts elsewhere?
I don't see why its not necessary. Its about the London bombings.
Ive had this discussion before with another member about the posting of threads to break news rather than to discuss the presentation of the news.. Basically, my point and opinion was that this forum is to discuss the actual presentation of the news, not the news itself. Obviously at times, there may be a crossover, but in this case, how is showing pictures of the bombers related to the presentation? Did presentation change in order to show the pictures? The answer is no and so I believe it is not relevant to this forum, but it could be discussed in the Lounge. We all have access to the net and news bulletins/channels, so why post the actual news in here when we can get our facts elsewhere?
totally agree. if you want to discuss the news itself, there are plenty of websites or The Lounge to discuss. this is for news presentation discussion.
Mmm...this is getting quite worrying if there is a shoot-to-kill policy against "suspicious-looking" citizens of a dark-skinned hue.
Sky News's Martin Brunt has stated "This is what I am picking up from security sources that the man who was shot this (Friday) morning at Stockwell tube wasn't one of those four bombers that police are hunting," according to Reuters.
A spokesman for London's Metropolitan Police said only: "the gentleman shot at Stockwell today has yet to be identified, so it would be impossible to link him to anything at this stage."
Police said the shooting was part of an operation directly linked to an "anti-terrorist" probe.
So if they didn't know who he was, didn't know his identity, how could they a) know he was part of an "anti-terror" probe and b) know that he was not one of the bombers? This is getting stranger and stranger. What was it about his appearance or behaviour that caused him to be shot 5 times?
Big up Sky News for breaking with the consensus on this.
The terminology in the media describing the "perpetrators" of the attacks of 7th July and 21st July is also quite interesting. Apparently, on the basis of solely Muslim guys with rucksacks on their backs on the 7th, we somehow KNOW that they were the suicide bombers, despite a complete lack of DNA evidence, strange circumstances around their travel to London, and their not meeting the typical profile of suicide bombers. Could the police have been totally thrown off the scent with this?
However, since the lot on the 21st are not dead, they are just "suspects" (except for ITV News at 6.30's disgracefully lazy labelling of them as guilty). Interesting difference.
Bit of topic but Breaking News this hour is explosions in Sharm El Sheikh-Egypt, 4 Car bombs reported.
N24 has coverage now with Tim Wilcox.
Nothing on NC and Sky at time of writing infact Sky showing CBS News.
Grey and blood red location maps being used which look very sharp, not seen this before on N24 myself.
Mmm...this is getting quite worrying if there is a shoot-to-kill policy against "suspicious-looking" citizens of a dark-skinned hue.
Of course we don't yet know if he did or didn't have any connection, but if you were asked to do something by armed police officers... wouldn't you do what they said without question? I know I would and if I didn't I would have a clear idea of the circumstances, after all they are carrying guns
Mmm...this is getting quite worrying if there is a shoot-to-kill policy against "suspicious-looking" citizens of a dark-skinned hue.
Sky News's Martin Brunt has stated "This is what I am picking up from security sources that the man who was shot this (Friday) morning at Stockwell tube wasn't one of those four bombers that police are hunting," according to Reuters.
A spokesman for London's Metropolitan Police said only: "the gentleman shot at Stockwell today has yet to be identified, so it would be impossible to link him to anything at this stage."
Police said the shooting was part of an operation directly linked to an "anti-terrorist" probe.
So if they didn't know who he was, didn't know his identity, how could they a) know he was part of an "anti-terror" probe and b) know that he was not one of the bombers? This is getting stranger and stranger. What was it about his appearance or behaviour that caused him to be shot 5 times?
Big up Sky News for breaking with the consensus on this.
The terminology in the media describing the "perpetrators" of the attacks of 7th July and 21st July is also quite interesting. Apparently, on the basis of solely Muslim guys with rucksacks on their backs on the 7th, we somehow KNOW that they were the suicide bombers, despite a complete lack of DNA evidence, strange circumstances around their travel to London, and their not meeting the typical profile of suicide bombers. Could the police have been totally thrown off the scent with this?
However, since the lot on the 21st are not dead, they are just "suspects" (except for ITV News at 6.30's disgracefully lazy labelling of them as guilty). Interesting difference.
You are extremely naïve if you expect all of the details of an ongoing investigation to be spat out immediately and without condition just to satisfy the macabre curiosity of the public.
First of all, there is a policy in this country that the dead must be formally identified by the coroner before they are considered to be "identified" by the police. Even when a celebrity dies, until the coroner has formally identified the body, it is improper procedure for the police to confirm the identity of the deceased until the coroner has formally confirmed it. This explains why the police stated that the man shot dead at Stockwell has not yet been identified. Furthermore, the police will certainly have known the identity of this man - or will have at least made every effort to confirm his identity, to within a tiny margin of error. Armed police are few and far between in London; they don't simply wander the streets looking for suspicious people to chase, and given the extremely stretched resources of the Metropolitan Police at the moment, they would not have been dispatched to deal with this suspect arbitrarily, and they certainly wouldn't have done so without extremely good reason to suspect this individual as having deadly intent.
Second, given the presence of the four men together at Luton Station, the presence of the car linked to the four men being found at Luton Station, the presence of the four men together at King's Cross Station, additional CCTV footage at other locations, the testimonies of eyewitnesses who will have been able to confirm the visual similarities of CCTV images to those they may have seen on the trains, and the links between the four identified "suspected" 7 July bombers and the house in Leeds where explosive materials and ingredients have been found, I'd say the burden of evidence against these four individuals is fairly substantial, and I wouldn't consider - given this weight of evidence - that the Met have merely isolated these four persons arbitrarily based on their racial profile and rucksacks. There will also have been substantial intelligence gathered behind the scenes, including many valuable leads which won't have been immediately publicised in the interests of security and preservation of investigative process. It is strangely both arrogant and naïve to presume that because you have not been informed of something that it must be wrong, or - worse - that there is a conspiracy of work.
Furthermore, there have been numerous and extremely substantial testimonies from the many eyewitnesses who saw each of the persons responsible. Considering that none of the bombs went off, and that while there may have been fear and mild panic, there was very little chaos at each scene, passengers apparently had ample time to get a reasonable look at each of the perpetrators. Having collated the many eyewitness accounts, and being aware of the times that the bombings were attempted, it's not exactly rocket science to match the descriptions of each bomber up to a CCTV image of the suspect, is it?
There's a hell of a lot that we don't yet know about this investigation, by necessity. If you wish to speculate, why don't you give the Met the benefit of the doubt instead of looking for some kind of grotesque impropriety by the very people who are trying to protect us?
Why don't you look at the evidence so far made publically available and draw a different conclusion? The police don't send armed officers out on a whim, so they must have had very good intelligence-based cause to be following this man. They followed him to the station, and when they approached him in the station, he jumped on to the train. They shouted some orders at him but - from what we've heard various sources - he didn't comply. As a consequence, the police felt they had no choice but to shoot him dead. Now, rather than assume that the cops just thought they'd spray some bullets into this chap for the sake of it, why not use some lateral thinking? How about thinking that perhaps the police had good reason to think he had broken into a run to get on the train to try to get away from them; that his intention was to detonate a bomb on the train; and that when he failed to follow their orders at gunpoint, the officers - faced with an instant decision to make - decided that they couldn't risk the possibility that this guy might be intending to detonate his bomb in their presence to escape detention?
Certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than assuming that the evil police are running around shooting people for the hell of it, and that they don't know their arse from their elbow. These guys have got a difficult enough job without bullshít like that being spread around. There's currently no real reason to suspect what you do, beyond a lack of released information and details. Those details won't be released until the police are certain that it won't compromise their investigation in any way, and its as sad as it is deplorable that you should try to twist the lack of available information into some kind of bizarre and ridiculous conspiracy.
Either way, this kind of discussion has no place here on TVF; if you wish to continue this exchange, I suggest we do so either by PM, or over on Metropol.
Its about the London bombings.