Targeted Assassination in London

Execution is not only permitted, but in this case, it was the preferred method

In-depth Report:

“We need to await the inquiry to learn the full facts. But if this man [executed in Stockwell] was unarmed and not carrying a bomb, it will raise worrying questions—not least that if we behave as badly as the terrorists don’t we risk losing the moral high ground in the war against them?” opines the Daily Mail. It appears he was not only not carrying a bomb or armed but he was chased by “undercover” cops, that is to say cops dressed in civvies. “It is not true to say that police officers must identify themselves or shout a warning when confronting a suspect believed to pose a grave and imminent threat,” notes the BBC, citing a manual published by the Association of Police Officers. “The manual says that that procedure ’should be considered’ but recognizes that the key aim of an operation is to ‘identify, locate, contain and neutralize’ the threat posed.”

In other words, execution is not only permitted, but in this case, for a South Asian man we are told was followed from a house connected to “suicide bombings,” it was the preferred method for “confronting a suspect believed to pose a grave and imminent threat,” even if the available evidence reveals he wasn’t a grave and imminent threat. “The appropriateness of the tactics deployed at Stockwell and the intelligence on which they were based will now be considered by the Independent Police Complaints Commission,” reports the BBC. “Its inquiry may well redefine the ground rules for the use of lethal force to protect Britain against the threat from suicide terrorism.” In short, targeted assassination will now likely become routine in Britain, as it is in Israel. It sends the preferred message to Muslims. “The tragedy is that when indiscriminate murder is planned by fanatics in our midst, the security authorities are increasingly likely to be forced into such life-or-death decisions,” concludes the Daily Mail. Of course, we have no idea who planned this “indiscriminate murder” and the Brit authorities have no conclusive evidence it was the work of suicide bombers.

Next up: targeted assassination of “militants” in “Londonistan” of the caliber of targeted assassinations in the West Bank and Gaza. Recall the “Right Honorable” David Blunkett, Labor Party politician, telling us he “didn’t give a damn” how many foreign suspects (or for that matter South Asian British citizens) are detained without due process in Britain (under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act) and insinuating that the “airy-fairy, libertarian” views of human rights advocates endanger Britain. “The terrorist attacks in London on 7 July and today provide an opportunity for us to reflect on our systems and practices to ensure they are sufficient to counter such unprecedented events,” declared Ken Jones, Chairman of the ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, and Chief Constable of Sussex, after meeting with Tony Blair yesterday. It now appears, after the incident at Stockwell, the “practices… sufficient to counter such unprecedented events” will include targeted assassination of individuals who do not pose a threat to the people of Britain. However, in the expanding “war on terrorism,” in essence a war on Islam at the behest of a small camarilla of Straussian-Machiavellian neocons, all Muslims are a threat and will be eliminated accordingly.

Articles by: Kurt Nimmo

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]