bomb alerts and stuff

People seriously do start sprinting out when the guy on the platform tells you to leave. I was all like "There's fuck all going on down here, if I run out I'm more likely to be running into trouble than away from it."

Nooooo....I don't think the tv company should have done anything. I think maybe our liberal democratic societies might have been a little more circumspect about pumping money and guns into a region dominated by governments that found Miss Piggy too much to take. I think there were some blithe assumptions made that these places would all sort somehow "modernize" at some point, without any real thought about how that might happen.

i don't think anyone's doing that. it's just about the enormous gulf between two societies; something the west has never really taken very seriously at all. it's a kind of passive imperialism, isn't it? "oh, look at these backwards arabs. never mind, one day they'll be like us and they'll be able to laugh at miss piggy too."

you can see it in bush and blair's faces: they genuinely cannot comprehend that other cultures might not see western capitalism as the pinnacle of all achievement. and that lies somewhere near the root of all our problems right now.

I'm not sure actual terrorism has much to do with either of these on their own - it's only the infiltration and interference of these on what is perceived as THEIR turf and subsequent effects that seems to have prompted this sort of extreme reaction. It's possible there would be sustained co-existence if 'The West' didn't 'meddle' in what is perceived as 'their business' i.e. looking the other way while atrocities continue and the Western definition of freedom is suppressed elsewhere. I firmly doubt the recent attacks would've been an inevitability whether 'the West' had done what it had over the years or hadn't - it's merely speculation either way though, but it annoys me when the war advocates criticise this view, as if their speculation could be any 'truer'.

Not that I necessarily think looking the other way was the 'right' thing to do, though I see no evidence that the choice of action taken has been, is or will ever be truly better, and certainly not when the fatalities are so much closer to home (geography matters I'm afraid).

hmmm!

Aw. Could make for an interestingly baffling excelsior in a little while.

but was Jean Charles de Menezes a Muslim? It seems unlikely given his Brazilian origin.

I suppose there may be a general feeling among a lot of people who share a particular range of skin tone. This issue is worsened somewhat by witnesses of the shooting describing the victim as 'Asian'.

As an aside, news reports now claim the victim had an out-of-date Visa!

xpost

and then they followed him for ages before pulling him over -- he went on a bus, and they followed him on to it. he could have blown the bus up.

there's still a lot that won't make sense for a long time.

it's hard to draw too many conclusions with as little details as this.

i must admit, i raised a weak smile at this. which immediately made me feel guilty.

the most chilling thing about this are the reports that the police didn't identify themselves at all. to begin with i worried that they might have shouted "police" but not identified themselves as armed; now there are suggestions they didn't even say "police".

this has to be bollocks, surely. these guys are trained professionals. there is no fucking way they wouldn't have identified themselves.

is there?

why intrigues me is why they left it to the point of getting to a tube train before stopping him.. maybe there would have been more options available for restraint etc?

They were following him, you loon. Then he went into the tube station and they decided it was unsafe to let him carry on.

Someone texted into 5Live with an unusually good point this morning:

If the policy is to stop a suspected suicide bomber the only safe way, by shooting them in the head, for fear any other course of action will allow them time to detonate themselves, then the logical conclusion of that is that it's also unsafe trying to shout "stop or I'll shoot" or whatever (at least if they're in a crowded area) – that also gives them the chance they need. So we're left with a real shoot-to-kill policy, rather than something that police chiefs are currently trying to describe as a "shoot-to-stop" policy that has the unfortunate but inevitable side-effect of killing people.

from this pov, it would have made more sense to confront him outside, cos the bomb would have been less effective in the open if he had gone that route.

x-post

exactly. the radio-texter's point is a very good one, but this is surely the only solution: try to challenge suspected bombers when they're out in the open, surrounded by as few people as possible.

it's amazing how little they're letting out, really, because it's making everybody paranoid.

exactly.

police hanging out stop'n'searching anyone of "asian" appearance randomly. maybe if there isnt another attempt imminently then it wont come to pass, but such a policy of basically putting all asian people under suspicion will be the nearest they can find to searching bags on the tube/all people (as was suggested immediately after the second attempts). it is a tactic that looks like it is pretty efficient to those who really want all "potential suicide bombers" to be shot, or nearest equivalent, and yet just about passes the "non-police state" test.

In russia anyone of a vaguely caucausian (chechen, georgian, dagestani, central asian generally) apperance, is checked by police who patrol ever metro station and major sites in cities. this is generalluy because they often dont have the right citizen papers so are bountiful for bribe taking, but in theory its for security.
of course, the multitude of bombings in metro stations and underpasses reveal just how effective this tactic is in keeping the city secure.

my friend (who was a scouser) for example got stopped 5 times on one journey of 30 mins duration.

Err, couldn't an electrical impulse from a stun gun have triggered a device?

depends on the device -- same goes for shooting, i think. i don't think *all* explosives go off if you shoot them.

This is probably Londoner-speak for "Leicester".