| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
rubylith
Fluffy-Esque
1915 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2006 : 10:30:46 AM
|
Cowboy UK Police Shoot Another Unknown 'Terror Suspect'
De Menezes lessons not learned, again proves shoot first, ask questions later policy still active
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | June 2 2006
Today's news that British police almost killed another unnamed alleged "terror suspect" in London under the shoot first, ask questions later policy proves that the lessons of the brutal murder of Charles De Menezes have been completely discarded.
Police raided the family home, a family described as "respectable and "nice people" by neighbors, in the middle of the night and shot a 23-year-old man in the shoulder.
If the bullet had been three inches higher this would have been 'De Menezes 2' and another unprovoked targeted assassination by London Metropolitan Police.
As per usual, the identity of the suspects and the nature of their alleged crime is completely unknown at this time.
Maybe their crime was to own a vehicle or a house, two of the benchmarks of terrorism according to the Metropolitan police, who launched a poster campaign to encourage Londoners to report on their neighbors.
We are expected to place our trust in the reasoning of the same people who chased and gunned down Charles De Menezes, a completely innocent man who didn't even show signs of suspicious behavior, shortly after the London bombings last year.
Occasional 'terror raids' in which anonymous people are snatched in the middle of the night and disappeared create a chilling effect that Blair's government needs to stem the tide of dissent.
Police battered down the door at 6am and ripped apart a Reading landlady's home because a Pakistani suspect they were looking for had once rented a room from her.
New glorification of terrorism legislation is so broadly and loosely defined that this writer could be vanished by the thought police for disagreeing with the government's version of events for an event like the 7/7 bombings.
Only seventeen of the 700 plus individuals grabbed from their own homes have ever been charged with a terrorist offence under the 2000 Terrorism Act yet the endless 'terror raids' are inflated and characterized by the media as proof that Britain is under constant threat and that evil terrorists are lurking in people's neighborhoods.
In March, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Britain concluded in its inquiry that the shoot to kill policy which was carried out in the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes was acceptable and should not be altered. Since de Menezes' behavior gave no sign whatsoever that he was a potential suicide bomber, this was a strong statement of intent.
What is the message being sent?
We are the bosses, we are in control. We can carry out targeted assassinations on British soil and there's not a damn thing you can do about it apart from sit down and shut up. Otherwise you just might become the next target of her Majesty's secret death squad.
We will wait to discover what dastardly deed these dangerous terrorists were planning, and if it was similar in nature to the fearsome plan to bomb Manchester United's football ground or the fabled plot to poison the underground with Ricin.
Both these schemes were of course completely dreamed up creations of British intelligence and Tony Blair's government, released at politically opportune times to scare the British public into supporting wars and selling their own freedom down the river.
|
|
|
dan p.
Alien Abductee
Uganda
3776 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2006 : 2:57:46 PM
|
| that's an editorial, right? i read these things, so i'm going to ask that you tell us the nature of the article, please? clearly you don't have to do anything i say, but i just thought i'd ask. it'd be easier for me to read if i knew. |
death to false metal. |
 |
|
|
rubylith
Fluffy-Esque
1915 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2006 : 08:54:22 AM
|
Perhaps it could be considered as an editorial based on facts, sort of like reporting on how bad war is, or how bad Enron was....as soon as you say "bad", that is an opinion, making it an editorial. How many people have to agree with it before it isn't an editorial? What would you leave out to not make something an editorial, what words turn it into one? I don't know, but I enjoy reading what they write...these thugs are fucking criminals.
|
|
|
|
dan p.
Alien Abductee
Uganda
3776 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 3:18:27 PM
|
it's not about who agrees or disagrees that makes the article editorial in nature. it's in the tone. an editoral may contain facts that support an opinion, but it doesn't make it a news article. it's all about language. neutral language. the whole first paragraph illustrates my point. for a real new article, you'd have to eliminate the word "cowboy" in the headline, quotations around around "terror suspect," and at least "brutal" in "brutal murder" if not find another way to say it completely.
"in the middle of the night" in the next paragraph is too vague to serve as a way to say when it happened. instead, all it does is make the scene seem more sinister. in short, if you want to tell what time in happened, give us the time. if not, don't bring it up. it also begs the question "why can't they tell us what time it was?"
"targeted assassination" is a bullshit phrase, through and through. not only does it again invoke a certain dark, "007" militaristic feeling, it's also redundent. really, a targeted assassination, as opposed to the sort where you just close your eyes and shoot whoever? assassinations are targeted by definition.
the 4th paragraph (even though it's only one sentence and not a real paragraph) is written in a tone, created by the phrase "as per usual," that suggests the written is fed up with whatever's going on. in news articles, the writer is supposed to leave their feelings out.
the 5th paragraph is sarcastic and completely out of place for a real news article. absolutely no information is provided on the shooting. it also says the campaign they have linked is designed to make londoners report their neighbors, as opposed to people they think are suspicious, neighbor or not.
the 6th paragraph uses the phrase "gunned down," which is hardly neutral. he was shot. the only reason to say "gunned down" instead of "shot" is to create a certain picture. also, was the man mentioned proven to be completely innocent? news reporters have to be very careful when they talk about someone's innoncence or guilt.
i hesitate to even deal with the 7th paragraph. "snatched in the middle of the night and disappeared in the middle of the night" is not only grammatically incorrect (it implies that the people who snatch the others also disappear them. you don't disappear something. you make it disappear,) it's blatantly designed to paint the actions as sinster and unprofessional. snatching as a verb most people associate with kidnappers or thieves. i believe i already talked about "middle of the night"
in the next paragraph "battered down" and "rip apart" sounds barabaric and animalistic. you'd expect a bear to batter something down, or rip it apart. people tend to break doors down, or knock them down. rip apart implies destruction. perhaps "searched extensively" or maybe something a little stronger would suit better there.
i don't know what to say about the next paragraph. he puts himself in the article again. he also says "thought police." unless there's a division of officers that police thought, maybe he should use the real name of the people he has in mind, instead of using "thought police" in order to put us in a sort of geroge orwell "1984" mindframe. once again, you make something vanish. the thought police would make him vanish, take him away, or whatever else. i've never heard disappear and vanish being used as verbs that one does to something else.
next paragraph. eliminate the word "only." 17 out of 700 stands on its own, i think. it also has a little bit too much sarcasm at the end. after paragraph 11, the article contains no information and could just as well have been left out with no measurable loss of information.
so yeah. i mean, i guess for the above reasons i'd call this an editoral and not an actual news article. even if you disregard all the points i brought up, the last couple of paragraphs are pure editorial. good news articles inform and nothing else. so is this an editorial or a shitty news article? your call. |
death to false metal. |
|
|
|
Hopeful Rolling Waves
Alien Abductee
South Sandwich Islands
2154 Posts |
|
|
dan p.
Alien Abductee
Uganda
3776 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 9:01:47 PM
|
| just a silly argument on if the article is a news story or editorial. you don't need to see his identification. move along, move along. |
death to false metal. |
|
|
|
dan p.
Alien Abductee
Uganda
3776 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 7:43:17 PM
|
| i like the idea of cowboy police, though. |
death to false metal. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Cowboy UK Police Shoot Another...
