Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:39:08 on Wed, 27
Jul 2005, Nick Cooper
remarked:
Imagine you've left your flat and travelled three miles - including
part of the journey on a bus - and nothing unusual has happened to
you. You get inside the Tube station, and are in the process of
buying a ticket when suddenly a gang of men in plain-clothes come
running in waving guns and _not_ (apparently) identifying themselves
as police. Are you positive you wouldn't panic and run for you live?

Hypothetical, if what really happened was:

"As Mr Menezes waited to cross the busy main road, the decision was
taken at Scotland Yard that he must not be allowed to get to the
platform.

The marksmen were told: if you think he has explosives under his coat
and he fails to heed shouted warnings, then you must shoot to kill.

As the three plain-clothes officers closed in on Mr Menezes, they say
that they screamed their first warning that they were armed police.
Their version is that he turned, ran into the station concourse, vaulted
the ticket barriers and reached a waiting train before they could catch
him."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...707480,00.html

So? The same article states:

"As the three plain-clothes officers closed in on Mr Menezes, they say
that they screamed their first warning that they were armed police.
Their version is that he turned, ran into the station concourse,
vaulted the ticket barriers and reached a waiting train before they
could catch him. They shot him five times in the head when they
believed that he was trying to trigger a bomb."

We now know that he was shot eight times, not the five claimed here, so
why should we accept the rest of "their version" as accurate? Of
course, earlier it states:

"There are eight separate flats in the block. When Mr Menezes emerged
from the communal front door just after 9.30am, the police must have
realised from the photographs they carried that he was not one of the
four bombers. Even so they decided that he was "a likely candidate"
to follow because of his demeanour and colour, so one group set off on
foot after him."

So they knew he wasn't one of the bombers, but despite there being a
one in eight chance of him actually leaving the flat they were
interested in, they decided he was one based on "demeanour and colour."
Of course, the latter is clearly doubtful in light of the photographs
we have now all seen of de Menezes, but "demeanour"? What a huge
get-out clause that is. And, of course, the cousin with whom she
shared a flat is disputing the "bulky, padded jacket" even existed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711779.stm

"But cousin Patricia Armani said she did not remember him wearing a
padded jacket.

"He didn't use to feel cold. In the winter he even walked on the street
with T-shirt," she told the BBC Brasil.com "

In message .com, at
05:54:37 on Wed, 27 Jul 2005, remarked:
And, of course, the cousin with whom she
shared a flat is disputing the "bulky, padded jacket" even existed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711779.stm

"But cousin Patricia Armani said she did not remember him wearing a
padded jacket.

No doubt the inquest will be able to sort that one out. Whether he was,
I mean, not whether his cousin could remember him ever wearing one.

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:13:24 -0700, thejman99 wrote:

@@@@@
Daily Mirror, 25 July 2005: Ian Blair insisted yesterday police
shoot-to-kill rules of engagement were necessary to protect lives. The Met
police chief faced off critics as he apologised for the shocking blunder
in which innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by
officers hunting the London bombers. Jean, 27, was blasted five times in
the head. Sir Ian said: "We're quite comfortable the policy is right but
these are difficult times. They (the rules) have to be that. There's no
point in shooting at someone's chest because that's where a bomb is likely
to be. . .The only way to deal with it is to shoot to the head."
@@@@@@

Tsk, tsk. . .so it has come to this: The Great Anglo-Saxon Powers claim
their *War on Terror* strategy from George A. Romero's zombie hunting
handbook.

Nearly as appalling as the senseless murder of de Menezes is the complete
lack of reflection on the part of the Anglo-Saxon Powers. This brutal
murder is the *War on Terror* in microcosm. Ever since *9/11,* the
*coalition of the willing* have been scrambling around from Afghanistan to
Iraq like trigger happy Keystone Kops, killing thousands and thousands of
dark-skinned others in an unending series of *regrettable mistakes.*

After last Thursday's dud *terror* attack on the London subway, limey
Prime Minister Tony Blair opined about the *evil ones*:

I agree, the world would be nicer if everyone got on, stopping insulting
other nations would be a start.

wrote:
@@@@@
Daily Mirror, 25 July 2005: Ian Blair insisted yesterday police
shoot-to-kill rules of engagement were necessary to protect lives. The
Met police chief faced off critics as he apologised for the shocking
blunder in which innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was
shot dead by officers hunting the London bombers. Jean, 27, was blasted
five times in the head. Sir Ian said: "We're quite comfortable the
policy is right but these are difficult times. They (the rules) have to
be that. There's no point in shooting at someone's chest because that's
where a bomb is likely to be. . .The only way to deal with it is to
shoot to the head."
@@@@@@

Tsk, tsk. . .so it has come to this: The Great Anglo-Saxon Powers claim
their *War on Terror* strategy from George A. Romero's zombie hunting
handbook.

Nearly as appalling as the senseless murder of de Menezes is the
complete lack of reflection on the part of the Anglo-Saxon Powers. This
brutal murder is the *War on Terror* in microcosm. Ever since *9/11,*
the *coalition of the willing* have been scrambling around from
Afghanistan to Iraq like trigger happy Keystone Kops, killing thousands
and thousands of dark-skinned others in an unending series of
*regrettable mistakes.*

After last Thursday's dud *terror* attack on the London subway, limey
Prime Minister Tony Blair opined about the *evil ones*:

"Everyone is canny enough to know what these people are trying to do -
whoever is responsible for this latest incident - and that is to
intimidate people and to scare them and to frighten them, to stop them
going about their normal business."

Less than 24 hours later, fear was frozen on the face of a remarkably
unfortunate Brazilian electrician named Jean Charles de Menezes. .
.here is how this man was exited from the Land of the Living:

"As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left
to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a
cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified," said eyewitness Mike
Whitby. "He sort of tripped but they were hotly pursuing him and
couldn't have been more than two or three feet behind him at this time.
He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor. The policeman nearest to
me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand, he held it down to
the guy and unloaded five shots into him."

Mr. Blair, just who is terrorizing who?

The next time Blair or Bush stand before the world and preach of the
virtue of their war, try to remember the last moments of Jean Charles
de Menezes:

"He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered
rabbit, like a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified."
But the truth is, there have been thousands of such moments in
Afghanistan and Iraq. . .

But you would think that maybe, with one of these corpses right there
at his own rush hour feet, a decent *Christian* chap like Tony Blair
might stop for a moment, might reflect upon the crime. . .might pause
his part in the *War on Terror* for a whole minute or two and ask
himself if he's chosen the correct course. After all, it was only the
day before the pointless murder of the Brazilian electrician that Mr.
Blair had bragged on himself and his fellow countrymen for their
response to the subway attacks:

"It doesn't change us. It is not going to change what we do. To react
in any other way is to engage in the game they want us to engage in."

So in haste, so in panic, so in a *rush to judgment,* the state murders
a Brazilian electrician. . .and winks at its own crime. Just as the
Anglo-Saxon states have winked at their thousands of murders in
Afghanistan and Iraq (which, if one gives a very generous benefit of
doubt to the Powers That Be, is the result of the haste, panic and rush
to judgment after the famous *9/11*). And while the Anglo-Saxon powers
have never been saintly, there has been a post-*9/11* change, contrary
to Mr. Blair's claims: the veneers of humanitarianism, rationality and
the respect for truth have been stripped away. The helter-skelter
murder of Jean Charles de Menezes is one more symptom of post-*9/11*
Anglo-Saxon criminal irrationality, joining the Afghan Convoy of Death,
*Gitmo,* Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, etc.

The *War on Terror* has always been ugly . . .now it is not only ugly,
but a farce, as well. . .a gruesome farce. . .idiot cops chasing
*terror* shadows. . .shooting stray coloreds, then scraping away the
mess and issuing, as London Metropolitan Police Chief Ian Blair did,
the following chillingly banal paradox of the *War on the Terror:*

"Somebody else could be shot. But everything is done to make it right.
. ."

Conclusion at:

http://hometown.aol.com/thejman99

It looks to me like you are guilty of 'rushing to judgement' in
condemning the actions of the police based only on a single eyewitness
account. Are you sure you know the whole story?

On 26 Jul 2005 10:13:24 -0700, wrote:

... it has come to this: The Great Anglo-Saxon Powers claim ...

I can't really comment on your grip on reality, but your grip on history
is pretty poor.

The last Anglo-Saxon regime came to an end 939 years ago.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633069.html
(50 018 under the imposing cliffs at Dawlish in 1984)

I hoped this anti-fare dodger technique might be working.