> Thank's for the written verification that terrorism works,
> and is working.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
> Was the victim even muslim?
I, of course, have no idea, and neither do you.
> No one's said.
If they had, would that have been good or bad? Would that mean terrorism works or not? What are you smoking?
> They don't even know who the person they killed was
Oh, I'm sure they know who the person they killed was. Just think, once someone stops breathing, it's easy to find out who they are. Maybe you mean that YOU AND I don't know who the person they killed was. And let's add THE MEDIA to that list. But I'm quite sure that by now the police know who they killed.
> just that he tried to evade the police and evaded paying
> the fare for transport.
No, in fact, we don't know what the circumstances were in which he was killed by the police. Oh, I see. We're back to you not reading for comprehension. Let's take it from the top; Carl asked:
>> What exactly were the London police thinking when they
>> blew away that bombing-related suspect today?
and I responded:
>> I'm sure that will come out later, but if he was attempting
>> to arm or activate explosives on his body, that's good enough
>> reason to try to stop him from succeeding.
It's simple, really: Carl asked for speculation, and I gave him one possible answer.
I know that's an awful lot of words for a Friday afternoon, but see if you can focus on one word in particular: if. Yes, that's a conditional statement! Welcome to the English language. ___If___ he was doing that, an appropriate response would be to stop him. Do we know if that's what he was doing? No, we do not. But we also don't know that he wasn't, and certainly the guy who killed him DOES know, or at least THOUGHT he knew at the time.
Which we'll find out at some point.
So did you have a point here or something?
> I'll repeat what I said about a week ago:
>
> Police state in the US within 90 days
> and everyone will be begging for it.
Did the US annex London now?
For the record: sign me up as being against a police state. In fact, sign me up for being against, on a blanket basis, whose motivation is principally "to make law enforcement easier" -- law enforcement is a difficult job, tough shit.
-----
Then you quote a story:
>> Police said the man was connected to their investigation
>> but did not say how.
<sarcasm> Well, there you have it: the final word from the police about this issue. Within a few minutes of the event, the poor guy who got shoved in front of a microphone didn't give a full, authoritative account. </sarcasm>
>> "(He) is still subject to formal identification and it is
>> not yet clear whether he is one of the four people we are
>> seeking to identify and whose pictures have been
>> released today," they said in a statement.
Right. Still up in the air. We'll hear about it later. Check.
>> Sky Television News cited security sources as saying the
>> man was not a bomber
Well, there you have it. From the horse's mouth.
You really are a piece of work,
/jordan