No, Foxs as in Fox and Sky News. I guess you've not heard that one. It takes time for trends to make their way across the Atlantic. "Why is Europe so racist?" What does your question have to do with that topic? I think you are lost. Wrong thread man. Perhaps we can move this to the "Why does MattUK ask stupid questions that have nothing to do with the thread's topic?" File this under /Underground/Ignorant-Posts
The question was about racism, which moved into terrorism, and funding. Just so we can't be accused of making things up, will a BBC report do you? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm
So that'll be FOX news then? Fox's news would indicate that it belonged to Mr Fox Ahh, so now you've answered the question twice and find yourself unable to offer a response you've suddenly decided that it's off topic I actually think it was you yourself that brought terrorism into the thread Selective amnesia? Or do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself?
So basically you are saying shooting innocent people whilst preventing terrorism is the best our police forces can do? Maybe the death of Charles de Menezes should be counted as a death as a result of the 21 July 2005 London bombings attempts? Only people who are likely to be mistaken for terrorists should learn from the killing of Charles de Menezes? Don't you think its the Police who need to learn from their mistake? He was only a target because he lived in the same building as the actual suspects - if he was 6inch taller, 2 stone heavier, had a beard, a nose ring or any other distinguished facial features - he wouldn't have been a target. If the police had been more efficient at their jobs they would have followed the right person. While they were following Charles de Menezes, the real suspected suicide bomber could have detonated his bomb freely.
Didn't he vault the barriers and run away from the police when requested to stop. I don't think the police had any other course of action that they could have taken. If they believed him to be a terrorist then they would have been criticised for not shooting. Maybe a failiure of the intelligence operation, but the final actions were textbook as far as I can see.
He didn't jump the barriers, but he did run to get on to the train before the doors closed. The actual shooting was done in good faith but the armed officers were working on poor intelligence. The real suspects were Somali or Ethiopian in appearance (i.e not like Charles de Menezes).
I doubt they had much time to debate his appearance. Muslims can be of any colour or creed. One question - if you were sitting on a train and someone got on that the police had reason to supect had a bomb and it was about to go off, would you want them to shoot or not?
It ain't easy man. It is gonna take years to undo the damage and terror funding of the Clinton admin. That is what we have been doing for 6+ years now. We are making headway.
I do not recall using an apostrophe, which would indeed denote possession. Frankly I do not have time to help you understand basic English. The best thing about responding to your posts is the inordinate amount of green rep I receive. Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
Yes I was just correcting your punctuation with that. Either the name of the company is FOXS (which it isn't), FOX's news and it belongs to Mr Fox (which it doesn't) or you're wrong again, though you should be used to that by now Excellent, I hope it makes you feel special. Nice distraction though from admitting that it was yourself that brought up the terrorism topic Do people follow you? Or stalk you? Perhaps it's the other way around?
Yep, Clinton, Bush (Jr and Sr) and all of the US presidents for at least the past 40 years. I guess none of them were concerned with supporting terrorism though.
You ought to know. You seem to be fixated on it. Are you ok? Perhaps now you can answer the original question? Why are you that way?
They had actually been following him for some time already - they had time to check his face against CCTV footage of the real suspects but they failed to do so. They weren't looking for a Muslim they were looking for specific suspected suicide bomber. It sounds like you don't know the facts but still have a firm opinion.
The police screwed up big time in Shooting him, of that there can be no doubt. But this killing is a sign of the times. I think what you said is spot on. That ALL shoot to kill deaths of innocent people can be attributed at least in part, to the London bombings. and other suicide bombings thereafter. The days of 'halt, or I'll shout Halt again', have gone now if you do not halt, and you are anywhere near the profile of a potential bomber you better HALT or face potential death. I never thought I would post that in my lifetime, as I never could forsee a day when our armed police would be left with no other alternative. The world changed forever when these Muslim extremists started carrying out suicide missions in the UK & America. These actions are putting back race relations by years, possibly decades. We are back to the dark days of the 60's and 70's. ANYONE who is not IC1 is viewed by many as a potential threat. It is so sad, it really does hurt me to see it that way. Innocent children who a few years ago would have grown up safe in our country are now at risk of persecution and potential loss of life, (as in the case of De Mendez) simply because of the colour of their skin! brought on by the actions of a Muslim extremist minority (98% or more of Muslims condemn these actions).
Yep No, I think you'll find that the original question was were you aware that your country has been sponsoring terrorists for years, or did you have your head in the sand?