I believe that's an accurate analysis on a strategic point. Unless we who elect, via democratic government processes, set ourselves apart from those who pervert power to criminal purposes of their own, as the gang of violent extremists who have seized control of the Republican Party in the USA have done, then we, the people, share guilt for their actions. Testimony is prolific that their secret agenda which has now misled us into unnecessary, undeclared war in Iraq, killing and maiming 100's of thousands, including American soldiers and civilians, making over 2 million people refugees in an ever worsening situation, exhausting their funds in less than friendly 3rd countries. These are results of malicious criminal misleadership. We, the people, must bring these criminals to justice, to stand our nations, ourselves apart from them, and make reparation to the peoples wronged in our name. We are not those kinds of men and women. We are like most people the world over. We only want peace.

Gary E. Andrews, Portsmouth, Ohio, USA

If the suspect had had a bomb and let it off on the bus or in the
station we would be blaming the police. the fact is they didn't stop him when they should have and then panicked. They shot him because they thought he had a bomb..er if he had a bomb(remember they thought he did) WHY WOULD YOU LET A MAN WITH A BOMB ON A BUS? Would this happen in Isreal? I think the police should be tried for putting lives in danger on the bus.

David, Cambridge, UK

I concur entirely with your writing.

It is not the Government or Police fault that terrorists perform their acts of death. However it seems many British Muslims like to to always lay blame on other people for their groups actions, just like the IRA did in Ireland blaming the Government for the need to bomb & murder.

What happened to Mr Menzies was awful, whats more awful is the arrogance of Mr Blair, Police Chief in arrogance himself refusing to step down after the disgusting way he obstructed enquiries post shootings. The actions he tooks just goes to fortify british muslims beliefs that the "state" is against them.

Islamist terrorists will always increase in numbers due to the allowance by authorities and of course by the Muslim population, of radical clerics & Inmans to be allowed to preach hate & recruit & dilude British muslims that terror is the way forward.

To inhibit terrorist attacks in the UK the Government MUST get strict and hard on radical muslim clerics

Will, Derby, UK

How do you confuse a Brazilian for a Somali, Ethiopian or Eritrean? They have very distinct features!!! So your point is if the police kill ten more people because they mistake them for one terrorist, it is okay? You treat this case like a playground toy. To you, it is easy to rationalize why the police bear no blame for gunning him down, to the mother, that is her son gone. How blessed you must be to be white and most likely never ever going to be gunned down because of a mistaken identity. They will never mistake you for a blackman holding a wallet that looks like a gun (Diallo) or a Brazilian that looks like Somali terrorist. If you ever get a bullet in your behind because they confused you for another, then you will have walked in Menezes shoes. The police have to do their job and do it right. We don't want to fear both the terrorist and the police. They should go back to the basics and learn how to id people otherwise the terrorists have already won. We'll kill each other 4 them.

Rex, Washington DC, USA

Thank you, David, for your excellent piece. Sad to say, I am unsurprised by some of your commentators. Can they really not see what a water-tight case you have presented? To answer my own question, they can't. This makes me despair. The I think, 'twas ever thus...

Rick, Bosworth,

Had there been any evidence linking Menenzes to terrorism your argument would hold water. But there wasn't and it doesn't. Making a mistaken but difficult judgement is one thing, shooting someone dead after a catalogue of bumbling blunders is quite another.

Mod, London,

R Hughes, Queensland, Australia writes:

"Terrorists can do little more than blow up a few buses or trains. But police are everywhere. If police run amok, then heaven help us. There is the real threat to liberty."

'Little more than...?" I suspect R Hughes missed the burning of the World Trade Center. Or perhaps he thought it was only 'a video' (which it became, but somehow 'lost a little' from the real life event).

I also suspect he believes Iran to wanting nuclear energy for 'peaceful purposes.'

God save us from the truly ignorant.

Excellent article.

Sam, New York City, New York

Izhar Khan's response seems to be similar to the larger muslim community's overreaction - "final solution for all muslims". I cannot find any reference in this article to that suggestion. Criticism of a terrorist abusing the teachings of Islam is not criticism of muslims as a whole; the sooner the muslim population realise this and separate themselves from them by outright denunciation of terrorism the sooner community relations will improve. I would also suggest that the comment itself has rascist undertones and it is you who should be ashamed.

In relation to "shooting first and asking questions later", I believe it is essential that the police retain this right when required; preventing terrorist attrocities is one of those justified situations. Mistakes will happen, but the vast majority are protected at the cost of the few. Unfortunately, the liberal ideal of calmly approaching and arresting offenders and punishing them is not always possible with suicidal terrorists!

Neil, Birmingham,

The people who are ultimately responsible for the presence of terrorists are the British politicians who who 30/40 years earlier allowed the immigration of findamentally incompatible immigrants into British society. Enoch Powel, with the common sense his contempories in parliament woefully lacked saw 'rivers of blood in the streets of London' and his vision has been realised thought one is not allowed to say so because it is racist. Terrorism is not racism of course.
This treason against the British people was engineered by a sloppy thinking Labour governemnt who simply did not understand the truth that 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. I saw this coming and left Britain over 40 years ago and my heart bleeds at the result of that criminally treacherous policy.

John, Perth, Western Australia

De Menezes was not an ordinary member of the public, he was here illegally and therefore should not necessarily be owed a duty of care. He could have saved his life by flying back to Brazil when he should have done, and spared us the spectacle of his greedy family looking for financial compensation. Or else he could have kept his head down instead of running from the police, whose twitchiness, whilst regrettable, really was in part due to events.
Even Livingstone said that mistakes could happen. De Menezes should just have realised that.

Dave, Slough,

I found the reasoning quite absurd. If somebody robbed your house, then you kill somebody, you blame the robber not you for killing the wrong person. Wow what a brilliant excuse. Excessive use of force by the Policemen were the culprit. It was them who shot the victim. The crime is who shot de Menezes. (without verifying)

Tery Reese, London,

Duncan - 7/11 happened before Iraq.

verity, london,

As usual, a well argued and emotive argument. That doesn't stop it being utter tosh of course.

We can all agree that terrorists cause terrorism. Unfortunately, that doesn't give the police carte blanche to kill innocent civilians. If there were no consequences - the "accidents will happen" defence - do you think we would all be safer on the streets? Or do you think the police would feel they could do it again?

The police who shot him deserve sympathy - they were following their orders to kill what they believed to be a terrorist, and showed exceptional bravery. But the inquiry showed the operation to be a shambles. There could be many good reasons for the shambles, but a shambles nonetheless. To confuse the reason for the police being there with the decisons and actions they chose to take is an error of logic.

Blair eagerly engaged in disinformation in the hours following (remember jumping over the barriers? Or that he was linked to the other bombers?) For that he should go.

Alan, London,

I was at Uni in London in the early 80's, and grew up in east london, possibly the most multi cultural place in europe, and even back then the isalmic groups were holding meetings for young muslims entitled "White People are Devils" etc. This was 10 years before the first gulf war. Their meetings were not political but religious and closed. It wasn't some kind of socialist workers party spiritual camp, it was nasty, hardcore extremism. The notion that any of this terrorism is really the fault of the secular, democratic people of GB is laughably, insanely, comically and tragically nascisistic! Soem people just like to burn things down and slaughter people. There is no more reason to the terrorists than there is to the russian chess board killer. Get used to the fact that there are people who lust after the destruction of everything we value, simply because they lust... and we are at risk through no fault of own.

Peter, london, uk

I think that the problem lies with David A trying to conflate two problems into one. Islamic terrorists AND the police were to blame for this tragedy, and Sir Ian Blair should have resigned at the time, in order to preserve any little honour he still had. Blaming Osman is not really logical; there were a number of underlying contexts. I would agree with David A about the degree of responsibility an Islamic terrorist might have, but this is no way excuses the policemen who carried out this 'execution' for whatever reason (panic, fear, blood-lust?), less still those who conducted the operation at a higher level.

I have a feeling that even if Tony Blair had not followed his master, George W, and conducted an illegal war in Iraq, there would still be Islamic terrorists, intent on destruction and the futile establishment of some sort of 'Caliphate', of no good to anyone else but themselves, and little to do with following God or Islam, and to which a lot of people will pay no regard.

Eric Boson, Tewkesbury Glos, UK

Where is this leading? It is clear that the police were responsible for the death of Menezes; the police system and response should be robust and flexible to deal equitably and rightfully with citizens in an ever diverse; culturally and ideological environment. Put I like the idea of putting the blame on the terrorist but the point is not a real one. In response to an early statement- The police are not believed to be terrorist so one tends to react with greater concern when atrocities are committed by the police who we should all trust; furthermore I don't believe terrorist could even trust themselves let alone for others to be their trust in them. This explains the concern about the particular issue in contrast to 7/11. The foreign policy issue is a valid one; there is actual ‘blood and bone’ link between these British Muslims and those in Muslim countries;

Alex, London, UK

National policy too is important; equally Muslims at home need to show visibly the actions and moves they are making to combat Muslim extremist. Likewise the ordinary citizen takes responsibility in ensuring that our system (police and govt) does not escape accountability; responsibility and other necessary abilities.

Alex, London, UK

we all feel frustration at the actions of our government - there isn't day when I don't shake my fist at the rest of you for voting them in. to be fair (in a way that kosminsky's bomber wasn't), most people didn't vote for this government, so indiscriminate rage is misplaced. to go further, part of the problem is the lack of a good choice. if we had a "none of the above" option and voting were compulsory, we'd soon see how few people actually support any of the main parties.

as for the moslems, it's hard to see past the conclusion that the "home-grown" terrorists are just inadequate scum who got religion, rather than men of faith who were pushed too far. the preachers of hate should be given no tolerance whatsoever. it is not a freedom of speech issue.

don't be selective about oppression of moslems, though. they are oppressed by their own leaders. misogyny, racism and bigotry are culturally (not religiously) acceptable. human rights for all (by god, allah, etc).

jem, london, uk

At last someone who remembers the attrocities on 7 July. Why haven't hte pc brigade spoken out against the 7 July bombers. Do they really think they'll be given the freedome of speech to waft their pc nonsense about when the terrorists finally realise their goal of bringing Taleban style law to this country?

Luke Nicolaides, London, UK

David Aaronovitch appears not to have examined the case made in court against the Met, reported extensively on timesonline and elsewhere. It was not the prosecution's case that the police acted illegally in shooting the victim when they did. It was that their incompetence in the run-up to the shooting would have left the public in grave danger if he had been a terrorist, and caused the death of the victim when in fact he was innocent. Simply, a person suspected of being a suicide bomber should have been stopped long before he got on a train.

Paul, Cambridge,

Mr Aaronovitch

Why stop at Hussein Osman in looking for the killer(s) of Jean Charles de Menezes? If George Bush and Tony Blair had not given orders to invade Iraq, Osman probably would not have volunteered for his failed suicide mission.

Do you really believe your own arguments? In kindness I suspect that you are trying out some negative psychology - which hasn't worked. Or perhaps you simply like stirring up strong reactions.

Barry Gale, Livingston, West Lothian

Well said David.Another straight down the line articles.But i bet it upsets the Do Gooders.

Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall

Of course the police is guilty. In spite of terrorism, the government doesn't have the right to kill innocent people.

Camila, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

May I mention the "elephant "in the article.
Mr Aaronovich's statement of the obvious is ,I would suppose, a statement of support for Sir Ian Blair - at a sufficient distance of course.

robert everitt, wolverhampton,

Dave,

1. Use of "appalling and undue violence" was not a charged levelled at the Met in the recent court case against them, its something you've made up so that you can make your phoney argument.

2. The police's catastrophic failure was that they allowed someone they suspected to be a suicide bomber (and their suspicion seems to have been a product of their incompetence more than of any evidence) to get onto public transport. By doing this they put themselves into the position where the shoot to kill policy was activated. Had they been competent they would have been able to stop him at an earlier time, realise that he was in fact not carrying a bomb and avoid shooting him in the head (number of times: unimportant)

There is, in fact, no contradiction to brave and no choice to evade.

Laurie Ray, Bristol, The West Country

Like it or not the Metropolitan police have been found guilty. Sir Ian Blair had his chance to plead guilty but continued to fight the case. He should resign. Like many other people he must accept the findings of the law that he is employed to uphold. Many of us don't like some of the laws being introduced in this country but he must accept them as we do or change them through Parliament.

Perer Turner, Nottingham, Notts.

Brilliant analysis ! The intellectual rigour of George W Bush: You either live in the same block as a terrorist suspect, or you don't. If it wasn't for those pesky WMD's not being found in Iraq David Aaronovitch would have kept his word and not believed another word the government uttered. Encore !

Mark Gobell, Ware, Herts

What a lot of rubbish to suggest it was a terrorist's fault that Mr. Menedes was shot seven times in the head by the MET police. Any fool can look at any event in history and then look back and say that if this or that hadn't occurred then the event itself may not have happened. I could make a strong argument that WWII would not have happened if the recession hadn't occurred and Germany hadn't suffered hyper inflation but thats missing the point and disguising the truth. The facts over this event are littered with gross incompetences by the Met and this is the real issue at stake and who should be accountable. Perhaps David Aaronovitch has forgotten the IRA campaign in London where the police never reacted this way despite that campaign being far worse. The sad death of an innocent Brazilian and the very real threats to the public by their mistakes cannot be excused and shouldn't be. The police screwed up and then tried to cover up - FACT.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

When you pull a trigger, you pull a trigger. Later, if you get to be older, you deal with it one way or another. If you believe you pulled it because someone else made you pull it, then you haven't started dealing with it.

Wayne, Abuja, Nigeria

So, we have terrorists and this excuses the police and the politicians acting like headless chickens and not following the rule of law?

What has to be remembered is that no only was Jean Charles de Menezes shot and killed but a member of the Metropolitan Police was also threatened with a gun and the poor train driver chased down the track with a gun. These people must have been absolutely terrified and one of them has died because of the shambles that the day was. Apart from the many other errors made by the Metropiltan Police.

This is just not good enough; the world does not end because there are terrorists. This is not a good enough excuse for the police to have acted the way they did and then acted like a bunch of headless chickens after the event along with Senor Livingstone and all the rest of them.

I know there are terrorists; I dont go running around shooting up my neighbours because there might be one on my council estate, do I? We know there are terrorists, thanks.

Donald Hedges, BA(Hons), Dip Eng Law(Open), Southampton, Hants

Oh David,

What can I say. Your reasoning is god like, i.e. mysterious. You remind me of a child pointing the finger at anyone else but him/herself.

"It was him, him alone". Let's regress to the very first days of human kind without any attempt to understand the situation.

OK, here is my regression. If you had not endorsed the Iraq war, it may not have come to this. Even better, if your parents had used a condom, the world would be a better place. Is this to your taste?

You should certainly understand it, since it steeps to your level :-)

gunnar, london,

"I always thought that to reveal anything spoken within the confines of a jury room was contempt of court. Will the police be knocking on Mr A's door sometime soon?"

If they do come a knocking at his door, it won't be Mr A's fault, it will be the fault of that nasty man who terrorised that couple.

Ed Murray, Corby,

I said several times before, but here it goes again.

Operation Kratos does not work. A suicide bomber can use a "dead man's switch" that closes the circuit when depresed (the same switch you have in your fridge for the light). In such case, killing the suspect would detonate the bomb.

john, London,

Mr. Aaronovitch,

Your argument doesn't make sense - you CAN have it both ways because the 2 arguments you mention are not mutually exclusive. The argument that the police should have intercepted de Menezes before he reached the tube is compatible with the idea that he should not have met a violent death because the police would not have had any need to shoot him had he been intercepted earlier before he reached areas where the public were endangered.

Jonathan Turner, London, England

Why seven bullets? One to the head is normally sufficient to incapacitate. Seven would indicate a trigger-happy 'cowboy' - who remain unpunished. Quid pro quo - the head of the responsible 'establishment' should accept the responsibility and do the appropriate, in lieu of.

My sympathies to the de Menzes family.

Guns and bullets do not win hearts and souls. Extremist worldwide have observed American might being vulnerable to AK-47's, suicide bombers and roadside bombs. If the death of one innocent can change current policy, then de Menzes unfortunate death was not in vain.

Luckybe, Geneva, Switzerland

I always thought that to reveal anything spoken within the confines of a jury room was contempt of court. Will the police be knocking on Mr A's door sometime soon?

Arthur Grell, Birmingham, UK

Wow - what a legal defence.. Why is this man not a member of the legal profession. I hope the defence counsel in the appeal for the Met contact him straight away to get more information and present this theory or logic or sophisticated rationale as the defence appeal strategy. This could be one of the greatest watersheds in legal history - I think it could almost be on par with the Nuremburg Tribunals or the Magna Carta and the legal debates therein.

Could we be seeing the start of a new career blossoming forth albeit late in life.

Michael O´Leary, Dublin, Ireland

To ascribe responsibility for the death of Mr. de Menezes to Hussean Osman-the would-be suicide bomber-is not just wrong, it defies both reason and logic.

Was it Hussein Osman who failed to ensure that the firearms team requested at 5a.m that morning never got into position outside Mr. de Menezes flat? Was it Mr. Osman who was relieving himself when he should have been keeping watch on the flat so as to render the surveillance team unsure as to whether they had a positive I.D? Was it Mr.Osman who took the decisions which allowed a suspected terrorist to board a bus twice and then enter a tube station?

No, it was the police who took these decisions, effectively putting an innocent man to death. The circumstances of that death were extraordinary, yet nevertheless it remained preventable had the police acted properly. To absolve the police of responsibility for their mistakes is not just grossly unfair to the dead man and his family, it is also morally indefensible.

Emmett, Belfast, Ireland

This article is spot on both in its anaylsis of the De Menezes situation, Britz (and our jury system!). Well done.

London is the frontline of a war people refuse to recognise and are hellbent on excusing. Which is why the cries here of 'Tautological' miss the issue.

(Its interesting someone has already mentioned Forest Gate - a tip off from a muslim led to that incident)

Pete, London,

As a Brazilian citizen I find this article highly offensive and wonder if Mr. David Aaronovitch would write the same if the person killed were a British citizen. Above all, I wonder what this newspaper would publish if a British man were confused with the leader of a Brazilian criminal organization and killed by our police. You would probably say we are incompetent and demand a much more severe punishmente for people responsible for the criminal act.

Thais, sao paulo, Brazil

So now its the terrorists fault that deMenezes was killed by trigger happy cops, instead of doing what their job is... protecting the public of which de Menezes was a member. Its been stated that there were catastrophic failures in communications, procedures etc. by the police. Yet, no one seems it necessary to take the responsibility and resign. And the media response has been muted at best,.... "yes, its unfortunate but we live in dangerous times..." Note how the police have covered things up, like the photo fit that was meant to mislead the jury (did the judge take note), initialy statements like de Menezes was wearing heavy jacket on a summer day ... All lies meant to mislead the public and cover their own bunglings.

Had de Menezes been a Britisher, I am loathe to say White person, then it would have been a whole different ball game including Mr. Aaronovitchs view.

Wii Mi, London,

I totally agree, it would have been far worse had the police failed to act and it had been a genuine bomber, the police would also have been to blame then as well.

The police and security services put there lives on the line day in day out for our safety. Police officers try to kill or oppress people (as some of you seem to think they do) but terrorists do.

If people were that opposed too the new safety messieurs put in place they would never have reelected Labor after they were implemented. Its free democracy, if you don't agree with it then its too bad, you don't have the right to have everything your own way.

Mike, Barrow-In-Furness, Cumbrea

So obviously De Menezes was not actually killed by the policemen who shot him in the head seven times with dun-dum bullets. It must have been someone else !!!! I am reminded of a column you wrote on the eve of the Iraq war. After much narcissistic hand-wringing and agonising, you backed the war but said words to the effect that if they didn't find the WMD we were told were the sole reason for Britain joining the US aggression, then you would never believe anything Blair said again...

Yet when they didn't find the weapons, you continued to act as one of Blair's chief cher leaders among the commwentariat as if nothing had ever happened! No doubt you learnt such intellectual rigour and uncompromised consistency during your years as a member of the BCP. Old habits die hard, I guess...

Nigel Williamson, hever, kent, UK

Duncan,

You may have missed it but before any invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq some terrorists flew some airliners into the twin towers and killed over 3,000 people. That followed on from a series of other terrorist attacks around the world e.g. the 80 people killed and 1,700 wounded in the East African bombings in 1998. You might also have missed the evidence in successful prosecutions in the UK which indicate that terrorist activity in the UK was well under way in the 1990s.

What we are dealing with now is not a liberal middle class protest against UK/US foreign policy but a far more significant eruption inside the Arab world in general and islam in particular about whether and how they intend to engage with the modern world.

H, London,

You are right. Blame the police AND the Government. You are conveniently ignoring the part the press and the BBC play in this rise of terrorism, by putting on it so much focus. How much less terrorism do you think there would be if deprived of the oxygen of publicity? If no terrorist incidents were reported, as has been a considered policy in past times and other places, it would reduce any point of the irrationality to a minimum.

Henry Percy, London, UK

To the armchair police officers complaining about the Met, join the police & prove you can do a better job! The police officers acted bravely in extreme circumstances none of us will ever experience. The fault lies with Muslims and their desire to rule the world & their perverse pleasure of violence.
Unfortunately there are many Muslims and their apologists always keen to defend the indefensible, as demonstrated on this site.
Oh it's so hard living in the west....the freedom, rule of law, free healthcare, education....so hard! It would drive any devout lover of peace to terrorism!

Ranvir Singh, London, UK

The article is perfectly correct. Much firmer action is required against extremist Islam in Britain.

ST G, London,

We condemn people when they do something wrong. That is the essence of moral judgement. We also try to understand why they did wrong.

Terrorists are rightly and universally condemned. Here the police have done something unreasonable and it is only right that this action be condemned.

In the same way that we need to understand why the police acted unreasonably, we also need to understand why terrorists come to do what they do. This does not diminish our condemnation. The problem with Aaronovitch's simplified narrative is that it allows only for "good guys" and "bad guys". Good guys (read police) are blameless, whilst bad guys (terrorists) are inexplicable and not worthy of the attempt to understand them.

This is the sort of blindness that regularly leads us to disastrous policy decisions.

Hassan Al-Damluji, London, England

Alistair Stuart - the only rational definition of "terrorists" is those who cause death and injury to or within a democracy in pursuit of their cause. In other words those who by-pass the legal, peaceful, and available method of effecting change.
The comparison of French resistance fighters with Islamic murderers is therefore quite ridiculous, especially as the latter seek to destroy democracy wherever it exists.

arnoldo, Coventry,

Bilal Patel- where do the Israelis come into all of this?

Robert, London, UK

ah david, one of the old school, its not the teachers, or the cane its the child fault for not knowing how to behave one never asks if the child was right..

michael joseph heavey, cahersiveen>adams towns, madness

Jay in London, If somebody where you write about the Jews 'owning the world' etc they way you have written about Muslims, they would rightly be castigated as an anti-semite. There has to be checks and balances on the police and military; we have to judge them at higher standards; if that doenst happen then the line beetween the terrorist attacker and the state defender (police) blurs and that is a dangerous development. Look rt Abu Gharib in Iraq, its a direct consequence of a breakdown in moral authourity (as directed from the top down). It amazes and depresses me to read comments by so many Americans on here who are bloodthirsty for more war and death while their young people come in bodybags from the other side of the world. Extremism has exploded since the US went on the war path; the world is infinatly more dangerous as a result. People are loosing their humanity, Menezes's murder was a tragedy and the blackening of his name was an even greater crime.

Brian, Dublin , Ireland

Mostly correct but for one glaring error "The man who really caused the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was..." the surveilance officer/s who couldn't distinguish between John Charles de Menezes and Hussein Osman. Something that I could have done with my glasses removed whilst wearing an eye-patch and squinting through the bottom of a jam jar. John Charles de Menezes was killed as a result of poor policing.

RJA, Nottingham, UK.

Izhar are you for real ? How do you extrapolate anyone proposing "a final solution" for muslims from the article ??!! You must be extremely paranoid.

Stu, London, England

Of course David is 100% correct - those responsible for terrorism are those that commit it and those that promulgate the "apocolyptic ideology, in which mass murder is sanctified". Which, in the overwhelming majority of instances globally, is Koranic literalist Islam.

Reverse culpability is, sadly, an all too common sentiment.

Nick Good , Midrand, South Africa

It's telling that the replies who somehow manage to turn this into Israel's fault appear to be Muslim, very depressing and as expected...

"If they hadn't pursued a murderous policy, courtesy of the Israeli 'security' services, then we wouldn't be where we are today.
Bilal Patel, London, UK,"

"Aaronovitch. Your argument is similar to those used by the Nazis who blamed all ills of society on the existence of the Jews. The natural conclusion from your argument is very scary. According to your argument we should simply create a final solution for all muslims. Is that what you as a jew have learned from history? Shame on you.
Izhar Khan, aberdeen, "

Perhaps they'd feel more at home posting on CIF over on the Guardian site which is littered with similar garbage

Billie Stockton, Manchester, UK

The fact is that the Met police actions were totally botched, and if de Menezes had been a real bomber, he would have set off his bomb long before they got to him. Their actions on the day reveal terrifying omissions in the Met's plans for terrorist attacks. In fact in spite of what Mayor Ken and Sir Ian tell us, there don't seem to have been any coheren plans. How else to explain the catastropic errors on the day as shown in the trial?

THEN to compound it , they tried to cover up: refusing to let the IPCC in, the "strange" disappearance of the CCTV footage from Stockwell, the "doctored" notebooks, the untrue accounts about de Menezes appearance and actions on the day (even repeated in the Pathologists report) and then the decision to smear his name at the recent trial.

And Ken Livingstone tells us the Met under Sir Ian is keeping London safe, more by luck than judgement on this account. To blame the terrorists for the Met's failings is rubbish.

0/10 David on this one

Hazel, London,

was mezies a illigal overstayer-was he working without a work permit was the flat he was living in council owned was he the tenant. answer all this and you will know why he ran away from the police.

max bernstein, london, uk..

Had it really been Hussein Osman who had been shot how would people have reacted? At least some would have taken called the police murderers, judging from 'Death on the Rock' .

But supposing Hussain Osman had blown up another tube train? How then would we be castigating our police?

The police were in a fix. They can properly be criticized for the mistakes they made - not being in position when they should have been; deserting an observation post to 'relieve himself' - but not for shooting a man whom they were told had been identified as a bomber.

De Menezes was in the country illegally and had at least some contact with cocaine. Not enough to justify killing him, but enough to make him anxious about his relationship with the police. Did that contribute to the outcome? We shall never know.

Would the bombing have occured without the Iraq invasion? Possibly not there and then but that is the ultimate ambition of those wiching to impose the Caliphate. Don't give them succour.

Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth, UK

I think that such a catastrophic error cannot be allowed to pass with the mere profession that we 'must try to do better next time' . The bottom line of being in charge is that you have to take, not shirk, responsibility. Ian Blair needs to accept this general truth, over pride and resign.

hams, bookham, surrey

So, because terrorists exist, the Police have carte blanche to do whatever they wish? Kill anyone they take a dislike to? And if we complain "it's the terrorists fault". Don't be so bloody absurd.

Jeremy, Chichester,

Mostly correct but for one glaring error "The man who really caused the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was..." the police officer/s who couldn't distinguish between John Charles de Menezes and Hussein Osman. Something that I think I could have done with my glasses removed whilst wearing an eye-patch and squinting through the bottom of a jam jar. John Charles de Menezes was killed as a result of poor policing at the operational and command level. It's that simple.

RJA, Nottingham, UK

Barry ... that is a fair point . The message boards however , are designed for the reader to respond to the article written and not for our responses to the article we think should have been written . Also , I'm not sure there is a great deal left to say or discuss regarding the bombings themselves , whereas the Stockwell incident has many aspects that need to be examined and debated by all who care for our way of life .

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

Rather than accusing each other of being apologists for either the government or fundamentalist Islam, why don't we recognise that both politicians and terrorists encourage and defend violence as a means of solving conflicts? That's the real indignity; there is no voice of reason in this debate.

This was also the flaw with Britz. Instead of showing how one can be both a law-abiding citizen and a political dissenter, it had to go to the extreme with an implausible story of how an intelligent girl transforms into a jihadist overnight. She is shown as someone who questions the status quo - why then would she become a suicide bomber when they are known to be fanatics who DON'T question, DON'T reason, but just follow a doctrine blindly...? Nasima would have been truly heroic if she had stood up both to her fundamentalist peers AND an increasingly oppressive government.

Billboards proclaimed "Whose side are you on?", missing the point completely: NEITHER.

NH, London, UK

For the sake of peace in this land we must hold all Muslims to account for the terrorist acts committed by their fellow Muslims.For if we are collectively gulity of creating terror by the governments we elect, then all Muslims are guilty of the murder of innocents by other Muslims. Guilt by association works both ways.

Muslims and their supporters i.e Kominsky must at once cease to provide the rationale behind which Muslim terrorist can create evil and mayhem in the UK. For if Muslim terrorists murder my wife as she daily travels on the tube I shall be justified in taking up arms in revenge against all Muslims. For this is the apocalyptic scenario which Kominsky's argument creates, violence is always and everywhere indefensible. Muslims for the sake of their future in this land must eliminate the evil in their midst.

What a great article, many thanks.

Jeremy Forbes, London, UK

Isn't this exactly the same argument Blair uses when asked about atrocities in Iraq? "It's not because we invaded and destabilised the country that these people blow themeselves up, it's because these people are terrorists". This argument is so simplistic and disengenuous that only a lawyer could use it withought cringeing.

Dominic, London,

This a bit thin. de Mezenes was killed by police incompetence,intelligence imcompetence and goverment incompetence as were the victims of 7/7.

7/7 indicated gross incompetence of all three. Was there any apology for this catastrophic failure?

We must fire all those culpable relentlessy including ministers until we get those with the brains ,competence and guts to the job.

John, Rochford,

the context in which d.a. blames the terrorists is quite obvious. we're talking sine qua non, not butterfly effect.

we should not excuse the failures of the met, but we should also not forget their bravery and the climate in which they operated. mistakes happen - letting a suicide bomber through might be considered a mistake too. the yanks regularly shoot our troops; no one is suggesting the met are gung-ho. they were, however, put in a difficult position where split second decisions are critical. most of the (fair) criticism of the met is due to what happened after the shooting, not what led to it.

for izhar khan to suggest the logical conclusion of the article is a final solution for moslems is simply ridiculous. a final solution for terrorists is just fine, though.

jem, london, uk

Warped and twisted logic. If you are one of the finest trained police forces in the world and you take your gun out and shoot someone 7 times in the head as a result of monumental screw ups - please do not turn around and blame some other person. Accept the responsibility and stop ducking and diving. Spin, Spin and more spin - the hall mark of this government and its services.

If it wasn´t for Saddam - Abu Mousa would still be alive.

Michael O´Leary, Dublin, Ireland

Good article. When well educated Islamic extremists few into the twin towers on 9/11, they must have realised that there would be an anti-muslim backlash. No action without reaction. De Menezes was innocent and it was a tragic chain of events, which started when well educated British muslim extremists blew up London buses and trains. Time to stop the violence.

Ps. Salman. The men in Forest Gate are not necesarily innocent. Just they can't make the charges stick - and I live in Forest Gate.

Ronin , Forest Gate, London,

So, if would be terrorists focused on change through intelligent debate or some democratic purpose, the world would be a better place.

It's a shame the world leaders don't follow these alternatives to war / mass murder.

Kash, London,

Kosminsky's plot is lame, unbelievable, and, in my view, a sop to Muslim victimhood. When the Red Brigade were bombing their way into the news on a reglar basis, there was an article written by a journalist who'd spent a great deal of time with two of its imprisoned young members; he was trying to find out why they had committed attrocities against their fellow citizens. The big surprise was that they didn't know. They had no coherent thought processes on the subject, no ideology or any kind of 'justification' of a cause' to offer. It seemed that here were two confused young men whose weak characters had led them to violence as a means of puffing up their own low self-worth, of making their 'mark' on the world. This wouldn't make such good television, perhaps, but its probably much nearer the reality than Kosminsky's romantic view of terrorist as deep thinking moral arbiter. Perhaps he thinks we should all be out there, bombing our way to our own world view.

anne, bournemouth,

De Menezes would not have been killed had there not been an Osman. This is not the same as saying that the policeman didn't actually pull the trigger, it is saying that a person who potentially is about to kill another 50 innocent people (by simply pressing a button under his shirt) has to be stopped - dead.
That is the situation created by suicide bombers and their evil, warped view of the world, as proven by the deaths of 52 people shortly before that tragic event and apologists for them are not doing anyone any favours except expecting us to tread softly softly whilst being indiscriminately murdered in our 100s or 1,000s (9/11)!
By the way, there were terrorists around long before even the first gulf war, so intrusion into the middle East is not an 'excuse' for further retaliation!!

PK, UK,

I found Kosminskys film offensive, borderline racist.
To surmise that the woman in the film killing herself was devoid of a process of religious "jihadification" despite all the evidence to the contrary in recent terrorist trials and bombings,
implies a willingness to commit random murder by this woman which is somehow innate.
Nasty stuff.
Kosminsky really should've real all of Siddique Khans suicide speech.
Not just the bits on the Ten O'clock News.

tim, Manchester,

There will be many different ideas and views as to who is to blame for Mr Charles de Menezes death. Personally I think he was murdered and the two assassins should be charged and bought before a jury for them to decide. The excuses for action or inaction will always be there. The fanatical extremist who wants to blow up a bus, train or plane will always be difficult, if not impossible, to stop. If Sir Ian Blair and Ms Cresseda Dick had held their hands up and said, 'As leaders of this appalling tragedy we take for full responsiblity and resign,' the general public would have admired them far more and quickly moved on. As it is we continue with more of the same and further tragedies are inevitable.

R.Allely, cardiff, Wales

Isn't it great to have your say. To be able to say anything you want. To have an opionion about things without being tortured or threatened for it.

Do people really think that the terrorists will stop when they get a better settlement for Palestinians, or when America finally withdraws from Iraq?

If they do. And I think that is what they are saying, then there are going to be a lot of red faces when they don't. Let's just hope the red faces are just embarrassment.

Joe, Borders, Scotland

Totally agree, we as British citizens have done nothing to provoke the crazy murderous antics of these madmen. We have given them a safe home away from their own countries which are under the yoke of their daft medieval faith and they repay us with mayhem and we're expected to shoulder the blame as well. The Police cocked up in this instance but who wouldn't under that sort of pressure from time to time, I would go further and say it wouldn't have happened if Menezes had stayed in Brazil where he belonged, his family are just looking to sponge off us now. We need to stand together against this threat, those that sympathise with the terrorists should go back to Pakistan or wherever and see how nice life is there.

Jim , London,

Some lazy thinking on both sides here. As one respondent suggests, Aaronovitch is indeed a well-known Govt cheerleader, in fact more than that he is an arch controversialist, preferring always the contrary position like an ever so keen school boy in a debating team.

However that is not to say that his main line of argument is wrong - Operation Kratos is a grotesque policy but it has been necessitated by the equally grotesque policy of murder which some of our citizens have adopted. Understanding tthe exploitation of both discontent and skewed ideology which have led us here is a vital piece of work but it should not be conflated with the business of stopping those who intend mass murder. Do I accept that police must pursue a shoot to kill policy in order to prevent mass murder? I'm afraid so. I am loathe to give the state the authority to kill but on balance it is necessary. All we can hope is that this authority is exercised with wisdom and restraint as was not the case here.

Jonathan M Smith, Edinburgh, UK

Correct: without Hussein Osman there would have been no shooting of De Menezes. Likewise, with no invasion of Iraq, there would have been no 7/7, and therefore no 21/7. So where does the buck stop now? The British Government? Perhaps, the journalists who supported the war - cough, cough?

Duncan, Northallerton, UK

I fully anticipate that horrific mistakes may be made in such desperate circumstances, but what I cannot accept is the attempted cover up - saying de Menezes acted suspiciously, wore a bulky jacket to conceal..., jumped the barriers etc etc.

Bruce Scott, Albany, Australia

If he hadnt stayed here illegally he would still be alive and none of this would of happened!

andy, London,

To Archie, London:
"By that infantile analysis the the real cause of Menezes death was the act of intercourse by Osman's parents. Had his mother not conceived him he would not have existed to blow up the train... ( Reduce as appropriate to the ends fo time) ".
Your argument here is far more patently ridiculous than the author's, since it was never the act of Osman's birth that 'caused' him to blow up a train carrying innocent civilians but his personal choice to carry out such a barbarous act. Please stop being an apologist for terrorism and murder, since that kind of attitude effectively excuses him of any responsiblity for his own actions!!

PK, UK,

I totally agree with what Mr Charles said. The professional conduct of the surveillance raises serious concern.
How can be justifiable the surveillance team allowed a suspect of terrorism to take a packed bus and train in peak time? Blaming Osman for that? However, in my view the worst of this tragedy was the attempt of Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Met Policy, trying to cover up the story and misleading the public.

Esperanca Hope, London,

No, Blair shouldn't be blamed or forced to resign over this accidental killing. He should go because of his endless other failings.... inventing stories of derring-do when he was a constable; toadying to the orher Blair; being a politically correct wimp; failing to maintain adequote entry standards for recruits.... the list of Blair's failings is endless..

P Williams, London,

David Aaronovitch is, of course, quite right.

One has come to expect blinkered denial from the Muslim community, it is the adolescent moral equivalence and morally bankrupt apologism from the liberal left which is most disheartening.

Equating the massacre of innocent London commuters by sexually inadequate nihilistic religious fanatics hooked on blood soaked dreams of medieval savagery with the French resistance fighting the Nazis?

What is wrong with these people?

They deserve our pity.

Patrick, Harrogate, UK

David, you are brilliant! The article is rubbish but the headline is correct? Who fired the shots, over a thirty second period, into the body of Jean Charles de Menezes? Why is the government frightened of an inquest?

Tim C, Southern England, United Kingdom

How about the view that sometimes it is impossible to take the easy option and blame just one person or group? Surely there are many factors involved and it is not possible for the blame to rest solely with one person or group.

The other thing is that this is just one tragic incident - de Menezes is far from an isolated case in dying at the hands of public services. That is not to berate the public services necessarily - how would you apply the logic of resignation to a hospital director who has many potenitally avoidable deaths on their hands?

Will, London,

The real culprit in my view is religion

Robert, London, UK

So we are nurturing vipers in our midst kindly identified by MI5. They have not been named or punished or imprisoned,why? Because they have not commited a crime. As Queen Elizabeth First said last week (TV Drama) facing a Catholic threat, 'I will not punish my people for their beliefs but only for their deeds'.

There is one country here with many different beliefs and a clear criminal code to deal with wrongful acts. Let us unite (all of us! all religions, all ethnic backgrounds) as citizens to defeat crime in all its forms. Let us have leadership and policies to protect our citizens, to protect our familiesand especially to help the young find alternative ideals to hate, fear and despair either from the Imans or MI5.

peter boswell, chagford , uk

Absolute tosh. The claim that the 2 main criticisms made of the police are incompatible is absurd. The justification offered by the apologists for pumping 7 bullets into this poor unarmed man's head whilst he was fully restrained by Ivor is that as he was already on a packed Tube, this was necessary to prevent his letting off a potential bomb and causing a much greater loss of life. I don't believe that anyone has suggested that pumping bullets into this man head would have had any plausible justification if he had been approached by the police in the street whilst he was walking towards his bus stop. The intellectual rigour of endorsing our mayor's assertion that "accidents happened" and shouting "blame the terrorists" is appalling. That there are terrorists is a fact of life, just as there are other criminals. But neither of these facts can provide any conceivable justification for the police killing entirely innocent members who are simply travelling to work.

David Charles, London, UK

It is the police who want things both ways.

If they thought that the suspect was a terrorist on the way to set off a bomb they should have take him out immediately. It was crass stupidity to allow him to enter a crowded area let alone board a tube train.

If he was not suspected of being about to set off a bomb there was no need to shot him at all.

The mishandling of the situation has probably caused far more destructive propaganda and destabilisation of Britain than just another bomb.

Having said that I accept that the it is the Islamic terrorists who are to blame for it all.

zb, Guildford,

Your are right, its not the police, soldiers or 'oppressive' policies, terrorism is the fault of the terrorists - precisely the argument used by the Germans indignant at the activities of the French Resistance, "terrorists" they called them - or those illegal fighters in the Warsaw ghetto, and by Stalin's Cheka when confronted by "terrorism" - the exact words- from peasants objecting to grain requisitioning and starvation. Aaronovitch is a well-known govt cheerleader but this is ridiculous, while no-one excuses terrorism (ahem Contras Hagana Mujahadeen?) no one should excuse excesses in counter-terrorism as therefore justified. One hoped he was as firm on Milosevic's behalf re Kosovo.

I loved the post from the reader who said "we talk, we debate, we discuss, we respect..." Must have the residents of Iraq with its 100 000s of dead and millions of refugees, rolling in the aisles. Along with those in the much invoked Guantanamo who seem rather short of forums for respect and debate

Alistair stuart, London, UK

Who really killed De Menezes ? errrmmmm , I think some policemen shot him in the head ... so obviously its not their fault .
I despair !

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

So Aaronovitch, are you saying would have been OK for the police to pump 7 bullets into Hussein's head at point blank range? Are you publicly inciting murder?

If we follow your warped and fantastical logic, then isn't Tony Blair to blame for the bombings in the first place? Who told Blair to go and fight America's and Israel's wars for them anyway? Was it God or Yahweh?

The Met are entirely to blame for Menezes' death. If they hadn't pursued a murderous policy, courtesy of the Israeli 'security' services, then we wouldn't be where we are today.

Bilal Patel, London, UK,

Tautological in the extreme! If I didn't miss my bus home yesterday, I wouldn't have had that egg for breakfast! Thats the type of nonsense you are presenting! Remember your argument about abortion - I blame your mother for this! The points are that a serious mistake was made and should not be acceptable, and Blair engaged in a knee-jerk reaction in responses to the media based on commentary he saw on Sky! Incomtetence at both an operational and executive level.

Stephen R, Belfast,

Aaronovitch. Your argument is similar to those used by the Nazis who blamed all ills of society on the existence of the Jews. The natural conclusion from your argument is very scary. According to your argument we should simply create a final solution for all muslims. Is that what you as a jew have learned from history? Shame on you.

Izhar Khan, aberdeen,

David Aaronovitch really does need to re-think what he is saying. Mr De Menezes was killed as a result of a police operation that was handled chaotically and which was not, if I recall correctly testimony by Police, an authorised "Kratos" action. Terrorists can be blamed for creating a febrile atmosphere but they do not run the Met. Sir Ian Blair does and should in my view go.

Jmaes Elliott, Eastbourne, UK

More establishment, apologist nonsense. So who killed Harry Stanley?
Next time you're in a shop and a theft occurs why not bang you up as well? Not the police's fault, it's the fault of the shoplifter.
By the way Osman was arrested by police in Birmingham using a taser - not shot.

Eddie Reader, birmingham, england

Mr Aaronovitch is completely correct and no amount of terrorist apologia will get over the fact that the evil within our midst is nothing to do with 'poor muslims being oppressed'. For heavens sake they practically own the world at least financially. He who controls the oil controls everything.

It is something far more insidious and fundamental about Islam that will not permit the madness to stop no matter what we in the West try and do. Appeasement only implies weakness and weakness is exactly what the terrorist thrives on. What happened to Menezes was unfortunate. But it is not the innocent citizen who is to blame. Nor is it the police who if Hussein had suceeded would no doubt be being vilified for failing to prevent another atrocity in the name of 'peaceful' Islam. Put the blame squarely where it belongs. The Islamic terrorist.

Jay, London,

There are 2 thousand individuals on the terrorist watch list.It is a greivous mistake to allow them to remain operative.This mistake is sitting in front of everyone and is glaringly obvious.Nothing is going to be done about it.This is another mistake.There is plenty of blame to go round.If a poisonous snake was living in your house,would you go about your daily business,hoping the snake didn't bite you?It would be a mistake to do this.If the snake were to bite you,who would be at fault?You or the snake?

ron, toronto,

David, a resounding second to Alan's remarks above. Let us remember that at least as far back as the Rushdie affair, there has been an element seeking nothing less than a global Sharia Caliphate.

Alfonso Valdes, San Francisco Area, USA

Absolutely spot on.

If we weren't in a war with terrorists then we wouldn't need armed police on the streets. No armed police equals no shoot outs and no terrible mistakes made like what happened to Mr Menezes.

And it is a nonsense to say "Is Hussain Osman to blame for the shooting .................." If it wasn't for Islamic terrorism then the fear and, sadly, the hatred of all things Islamic would not be on the increase.

I do fail to understand why young people feel the need to travel to Terrorist training camps in order to learn how to murder fellow human beings. We are not savages, we talk, we debate, we discuss, we respect the opinions of others.

Above all we respect the rights of others to life.

Marcus, Singapore,

I am disappointed by David Aaronovitch's article. Equally I am disappointed by the Commissioner's failure to resign. Both want the police to be seen as victims which is unforgiveable. On the day this tragedy occurred, the police were in control and took the decisions. Unfortunately they were the wrong decisions. They are culpable.

David Lee, New York, USA

Mr Aaronovitch,
I don`t usually agree with what you write but in this instance
you are totally correct. We shouldn`t blame the police, the
Government or least of all the victims. We can and should
blame the police or Government for incompetent or inadequate
response to Islamic terrorism. Ultimately the blame lies with
a vile religeon that condones murder, holy war. and execution
for apostates in other words Islam.

Denver Watt, Osaka,

So it's not the fault of the police if they kill someone through mistaken identity? Shoot first and ask questions later? Then we can look forward to many more blunders and innocent lives lost.

Terrorists can do little more than blow up a few buses or trains. But police are everywhere. If police run amok, then heaven help us. There is the real threat to liberty.

R Hughes, Queensland, Australia

OK the terrorists are responsible for terrorism. Everyone got that?

Just who's responsible for the operational effectiveness of the police then? Terrorists? The individual coppers? The Met's senior management?

I don't blame the individual police on the day particularly the one codenamed "Ivor" who got into a carraige with what he thought would be a suspected bomber. He and some others were real heroes in my view.

As to the senior management of the Met I have quite a different view.

John Goh, Welwyn Garden City, UK

Kosminsky, and those like him, can be very patronising of different cultures.

We in the west have a moral code and a conscience, they say. We are responsible for the consequences of our actions and must be held to blame.

If people die of disease because of sanctions on Saddam's Iraq, it is out fault. If there is poverty in Africa because billions of dollars of aid has been stolen or wasted, it is the west's fault for not giving the right sort of aid. Islamic terrorism is our fault because immigrants to Britain could not get jobs and the west does not do enough to promote democracy in Muslim countries.

The actions that directly cause these problems are treated as cool facts, with no moral quality. So Saddam is not responsible for his aggression, Mobutu for his greed, or Osman for his murderous hate. It's our fault.

Why do people hate the west?

If I denied you responsibility for your own actions, would you hate me?

Iain Thorpe, Wellington, New Zealand

Surely another limiting factor would be whether Mr de Menezes should have been in the UK during this period given that his work permit had expired. However with all due respect this is one of many factors which all contributed to an unfortunate conclusion.
Is the government/immigration departments therefore partly responsible for this death? We can back extrapolate many hundreds of contributing factors.

Bradley, London, UK,

I agree with your point about Kosminsky's dishonesty/naivety, but I fail to see how the mere existence of terrorists exonerates the police from any kind of blame/accountability (I'm not demanding resignations). Furthermore, you fail to recognise that a significant portion of the anger directed at the police came about because they failed to verify the facts of the shooting before going public and tried to imply that Jean Charles de Menezes was partly to blame for what happened.

Mark Richards, London,

"The man who really caused the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was... an Ethiopian called Hussein Osman. It was Osman who, one day earlier, had tried to blow up a train... No matter how one tries to skirt around this point, had Osman not existed, or else been content with allowing his fellow citizens to exist in peace, Jean Charles de Menezes would still be alive"

By that infantile analysis the the real cause of Menezes death was the act of intercourse by Osman's parents. Had his mother not conceived him he would not have existed to blow up the train... ( Reduce as appropriate to the ends fo time)

Aaronovitch is making the uneducated error of confusing factual (but for) causes of an event with the imputable causes.

Archie, London,

So I suppose Hussain Osman is also to blame for the shooting of an innocent Muslim in Forest Gate???

Salman, london, UK

David, I`ve disagreed with much of what you have written about Iraq and in defence of Blair, but I think that in this article you are absolutely spot-on. It`s the first sensible article I`ve read about the whole tragic de Menezes saga. Your last paragraph in particular should be required reading for anyone else writing on this topic.

alan, northants,