Did he say "bomb" or didn't he?

They are investigating.

The US president has concluded that the shooting was correct.

It appears that they believe that the deceased did indeed say "bomb."

I wonder if he said "I have a bomb" or "I saw a bomb."

In relation to this story, it is interesting to consider something another apparently bipolar gentleman said once:

"You won't believe this, but I remember the last time we toured Yugoslavia, I said to the band: something's going to happen here. They said, why, it's lovely? But I could feel it. I could feel it. I could bloody. . . I could virtually see it, in the audience, above the audience. I'd come off stage, and say, it's fucking weird that audience. I'd never been frightened by an audience, you know? They go, no, it's great, the birds are lovely and all that. And it was, they're better dressed than us. Every time I went out I got in trouble with the police or a soldier, every fucking time. I got stopped; I got chased by soldiers once. I thought: there's something going on here, I don't like it, you know what I mean. I'd be talking to somebody and think they were crying. They weren't. [Laughs] It's weird isn't it? I don't like that too much. I don't have that so much now. It used to shit me up when I was a teenager. Somethings are better you don't know; don't want to know. Don't want to forecast or hear about. Maybe those kind of things only feel strange because they've been suppressed or they are not discussed. Maybe they are not that strange. That's right. Maybe people should be a bit more aware of it." (emphasis added)

I believe you, Mark. I know how these things can be. On page 57 of the random thoughts thread, I am working on a story about a woman who has an anxiety attack and needs to get home to her kittycat.

he out-ran soldiers
ive read this before-but outran soldiers like bad movie-he had afondnes for mushrooms and speeed

I dont like all this trigger happy shooting bs. If they shoot me I wont be happy. :angry:

Getting interesting. It almost seems like the marshals could be lying.

They really ought to look into that aspect of the story.


Cheers!

:lol: .. Admirably understated post sir..

Firstly, people who volunteer to carry guns professionally for whatever reason clearly have some issues with the sanctity of human life.

And secondarily, the police will inspire far more confidence if they publicly discipline those who abuse the responsibility of carrying arms, rather than closing ranks. Should the leaks re; the Menezes case, and the doubts over this Air Marshalls case prove to be founded, these officers should be imprisoned for manslaughter at best and (depending on the evidence) possibly even murder.

I reckon for once we are all agreed.
case closed.

Even the iconic scarey mime?

As the story is emerging, it looks like the government may try to take the position that the only people who heard the man say bomb are the people who shot him in the jetway (I assume they mean that adjustable hallway thingees one takes from the airport building proper to the plane).

Some conservatives also seem to be gravitating toward the position that it doesn't matter whether or not he said "bomb." I think it matters, tho.

Fun URL:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...sts?q=1&&page=1

In Mississippi, there are things you can do to delay being shot by the police. But they get ya in the end (see Dec 7 entry at linked blog).

On edit: hellotfe

As Cleanville T. will know, the Canadian Prime Minister has vowed to ban handguns in Canada, saying that handguns have no practical purpose except to kill people.

There are a few exceptions to the ban:
1. Illegal, unregistered guns have been banned for 75 years. No change there.
2. Provinces can opt out, meaning a ban will be regional, not national.
3. Target shooters will get to keep their guns.
4. For collectors to keep their guns, they have to become target shooters.

Did you notice something about point 4? In order for collectors to keep their guns, they will have to LOAD and SHOOT their weapons. There are no other classes of legal gun owners today, only collectors and target shooters. We could end up with the same number of handguns and MORE shooters after the ban than there are now!

I might suggest that the P.M. is trying to win urban lefty votes with this announcement (election day is January 23, 2006), but that might sound cynical. :(

I don't find it unusual that a PM candidate would campaign based, at least in part, on handgun law. Lots of people think that is an important issue. I, not eligible to vote in Canda and with limited experience here, am ambivalent and undecided on this.

I think a bigger problem than handgun law is the warrantless searches that CDN police are now asking for on an increasingly routine basis. Yes, you can refuse the search, but the problem is that police then make you an automatic suspect, even if your objection is based on principle rather than guiltyness. In fact, police are now suggesting that if you are not home when they come to ask you for a warrantless search, your mere absence can make you a suspect. In other words, these "consensual" searches are pretty corecive and therefor not consensual in the meaningful sense. The Toronto mayor is concerned about this, but it seems to me more like a national issue and a more urgent issue than the handguns thing.

Would be great to get Gorillabat's or DJR's or Sean's perspective on this.

Disclaimer: I have never owned a real gun and probably never will.

C.T., you're absolutely right, a lot of civil liberties are falling by the wayside. A man in Ontario is facing charges of libel for criticizing his local volunteer fire department. So much for free speech! Incredible!

So far the election shows the parties sticking to the issues. Have you been watching CPAC? I highly recommend it. Wall-to-wall coverage, or should I say door-to-door - they bring a camera crew around while candidates meet the people.

Addictive, and somehow reassuring.

Gotta go :zzzz: now.

G'night!

:devil: