said to be of muslim appearance

May 22nd, 2013 § 1 comment § permalink

The news is all about the killing in Woolwich, as you’d expect.

The reports are all very similar, but there is one line in The Sun that caught my eye as really rather odd.

The men were said to have been of Muslim appearance.

Said by who? Witnesses? The police? Or is it the opinion of Kay Morrison, Harry Haydon and Jo Sayer whose by line is on the article? It’s not in part of the copy quoting witnesses, it dumped twix a Whitehall statement and a sentence about Theresa May convening Cobra (Cobra ffs. They know nothing of these two guys and one man is dead. They had a gun and knives. That is hardly a national emergency). No other major paper carries a statement like it.

How can anyone tell these guys are muslims? They’re certainly hiding their beards well, and those turban things muslims wear have had a major redesign lately.

Thank you The Sun, for helping me identify dangerous muslims. I must remember then, ordinary everyday clothes, equals muslim.

Freezepage of the article here.

If it moves, shoot it. If it doesn’t move, shoot it till it does

September 3rd, 2010 § 4 comments § permalink

For fucks sake

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.
[…]
The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

Capt R’s lawyers argued that the “confirmation of the kill” after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.

The officer always followed standard practice, you see…

A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post’s operations room and describes Iman as “a little girl” who was “scared to death”. After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

Is that also standard practice? Shooting into a suspected bomb to see whether it actually is a bomb or not?

Although the military speculated that Iman might have been trying to “lure” the soldiers out of their base so they could be attacked by accomplices, Capt R made the decision to lead some of his troops into the open. Shortly afterwards he can be heard on the recording saying that he has shot the girl and, believing her dead, then “confirmed the kill”.

Even though the girl could be a lure, the captain still move some of his men into the open. Is that standard practice, too?

Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child’s body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. “She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs,” he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. “The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face.”

He fired shots near, not at the girl? And she was shot 17 times? This man should be prosecuted for incompetence as well as murder.

Lost for words, I really am.

Via MsMaryViola

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with murder at Sim-O.