Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"21/7 suspect planned to destroy a London tower block"

editor

hiraethified
Blimey! The lawyer of one of the 21/7 defendants has claimed that one of the other accused bombers wanted to blow up a tower block in Southgate, of all places.

Mr Kamlish said the plan to blow up the tower block at Curtis House, New Southgate, north London, involved a sideboard with trigger wires intended to spark an explosion when police entered the premises.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6479333.stm
 
editor said:
Blimey! The lawyer of one of the 21/7 defendants has claimed that one of the other accused bombers wanted to blow up a tower block in Southgate, of all places.
Doncha just love the old cut-throat defence ... :D
 
marty21 said:
it was the others not me, sort of thing
Reading between the lines it's going to be "I'm really stupid, he made me do it - that's a defence of duress or something similar." in this defendant's case.
 
This is a bit odd:

Mr Ibrahim denied that and said, as a Muslim, he believed those who committed murder would go to "hell fire".

Would a militant bent on martyrdom say that he believed such an action would be against the teachings of islam?
 
Apparently he went apeshit when the defence QC suggested he'd lost his bottle, and didn't want martyrdom after all... he was going nuts, then it was said he planned to do the tower block and they actually dragged the sideboard into court, which was covered in explosive residue.

He's going to be cross examined for days, so there will be more entertainment to come... after all he is truly fucked.

I suggest jail then some "accidental" lapsing of the suicide watch, saves the taxpayer a few quid...
 
TAE said:
Would a militant bent on martyrdom say that he believed such an action would be against the teachings of islam?

A militant bent on martyrdom might well lose resolve and say anything when facing life in prison.
 
He'd first have to decide to either speak out against his own beliefs, or he'd have to change his beliefs, before claiming that such attacks would be against the teachings of islam.
 
TAE said:
Would a militant bent on martyrdom say that he believed such an action would be against the teachings of islam?

Gosh, would a failed Islamonut bomber lie?

Until the trial is over, I'll be a bit wary of expressing my opinion on the plausability of the defence case, but I think it's safe to say that sometimes people, including 'slamists, lie through their teeth.

I guess it's also fairly safe to comment on another trial going on abroad. People accused of the 11-M atrocity in Madrid are on trial at the moment. Unlike the trial in London, the trial of those accused of 11-M is filmed. Snippets of the trial have clearly shown defendents trying and failing to conceal their laughter at some of the most ridiculous claims made by their comrades giving evidence.
 
Detective Boy

Yes there can be humour in the court. A few years back I went along with a witness/victim. He was 58 and registered disabled with joint problems in his shoulders. The accused (acquitted) was later world champion boxer Mehrdud Takaloo(bighashi).

The defence brief asked the witness about his disability and was told that he had limited movement in his shoulders. The brief then tried the old trick of asking him to demonstrate how much movement he had before he was disabled (for a moment I thought the guy was going to show his full range of movement)

Then the defence brief asked if he had himself been a boxer in his youth ...

"Nah mate not me I couldn't box oranges .. cricket was my game ... had a box for that"

Jury smiled ... they had sussed him as a former fighter. Takaloo walked.
 
TAE said:
He'd first have to decide to either speak out against his own beliefs, or he'd have to change his beliefs, before claiming that such attacks would be against the teachings of islam.

I'm not sure of what you mean with this.

salaam.
 
Pete the Greek said:
Erm, Pete the Greek, exactly where's this "evidence" that you're referring to? :confused:

Link One:

the wikipedia page linked to said:
"New Southgate is a residential suburb in the south-east corner of the London Borough of Barnet and the south-west corner of the London Borough of Enfield in North London, England.

The area is situated at the meeting point of three boroughs: Barnet, Enfield and Haringey. Although it is close to Southgate it is regarded as a separate "village".

The postcode N11 - an area which includes parts of Arnos Grove, Bounds Green and Friern Barnet, as well as New Southgate - is often simply referred to as New Southgate.

The area is served by New Southgate railway station and Arnos Grove tube station.

The area was originally known as Colney Hatch, but that name became so much associated with the nearby Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum that the name New Southgate was adopted."

Nope. Not there.

No "evidence" whatsoever in that first link to suggest that the area any attacks allegedly planned in that area might have been motivated by anti-Semitism.

Link Two:

Erm, Pete the Greek, you just linked to a street map of London. Where's the "evidence" to support your assertion?

Link Three:

"Geographic Distribution
Minority religions mainly in London"

[Graphic]

Percentage of each religion living in London, April 2001, GB"

There's bar chart graphic that *appears* -- at first glance -- to support Pete the Greek's assertion.

Because, when you quickly glance at the chart, you see that the Jewish 'population' is more than 50 per cent as compared with the others.

Wow, you think, the population's 56 per cent Jewish, the alleged attack *must* have been motivated by anti-Semitism.

Bollocks.

Look again.

Look closely.

56 per cent Jewish. And the other religions? 52 per cent Hindu, 38 per cent Muslim (but they're also attacking a substantial portion of their own population? :confused: ), Buddhists were the next largest group with 36 per cent...

Erm, hang on...

56 per cent
+ 52 per cent
+ 38 per cent
+ ...

Eyup! That's more than 100 per cent. That can't be right. *scratches head, takes another look at the link*

Aah! I get it now. The 56 per cent *doesn't*, in fact, relate to the Jewish population of the said Tower Block. It doesn't relate to the immediate area either. In fact, it doesn't even relate to the population of London. London does not have a Jewish community that amounts to 56 per cent of the tower block or New Southgate or London.

The 56 per cent figure is: Out of the national population of Jewish people in the UK (100 per cent of all Jews living in the country), 56 per cent of them live in London. That's London. The huge metropolis. Not a single suburb of London. And certainly not a single residential building within a suburb within the metropolis of London.

So, Pete the Greek, I'll ask again: "Where, precisely, is the "evidence" you refer to?

You do realise don't you, that anti-Semitism is bad enough in and of itself, that much of it which actually exists, is frightening enough.

Do you really think it's wise to be spreading silly unsupported internet rumours and terrifying Jewish people unnecessarily?

I actually think it's a really sick thing to do, personally, but that's just imo.
 
FUCK OFF Ann, you moron.

I wasn't spreading internet rumours to scare anyone you utter pious tit.

I simply observed, using a few links to help demonstrate (and if you open your eyes you'll see the evidence in the sources), that Southgate in Barnet is an area with a HIGH POPULATION OF JEWISH PEOPLE. Guess what, I'm from London...and yes.....I happen to know that this area has a high pop of Jewish people! Amazing isn't it! Such inside knowledge!

Or....a simple obvious observation.

Why else would they target an obscure north London suburban tower block you cretin? Unless they were interested in the demographic. They didn't look at tower blocks in Catford, Lewisham, or Shorditch.

it was an observation, and hey, guess what....I may be wrong! I can't prove Jews were a target, merely make an ...OBSERVATION that anyone with a brain cell would have made at least if only fleetingly in their minds. Well, those with any idea of London demographics anyway.

Fuck you and fuck off for hurling accusations and shit at me, dumb ass.
 
New Southgate is a shithole :)

New Southgate (in Barnet) is miles away from Southgate (in Enfield) geographically. Although Barnet has a high Jewish population (15%), it's all in other parts of Barnet. The small area known as New Southgate, of which Curtis House is a part, is one big sink estate with a bad reputation - an area riven by crime, drugs and poverty, like many areas of London. I've lived nearby for years, and I know about at least three killings in the area for example. It wasn't a planned attack on Jewish people that's for sure. And it's totally appropriate that there should be a bomb factory there - that just about sums up the place :D :(
 
I ask you repeatedly, clearly, and politely, to demonstrate where is the evidence that you purported to link to, which by my examination of those links was absolutely, categorically, non-existent.

The "evidence" you purport to refer to, to my knowledge, is absolutely *NOT THERE*.

There is no "evidence" in the sources; or to put it in language you might better understand: There is no fucking evidence in the fucking sources you fucking moron.

I checked the links. All of them. And there was absolutely no specific reference to a large Jewish population in that particular tower block, or in that particular suburb of London. No reference whatsoever to what your claiming in even any single one of those three links that you provided.

Instead of hurling abuse, if that specific information is actually there, perhaps you'd enlighten not just me, but also the rest of the people in this thread who you've been aiming to mislead with apparently false allegations?

Yes, the statistics showed that more than 50 per cent of the Jewish people in this country live in London. That's a big city. That's certainly not the same as your claim, that Jewish people were specifically targetted by the alleged plan to blow up this particular tower block.

Can you actually provide any evidence whatsoever that there is a high Jewish population in that particular suburb, or particularly in that tower block, as that's what your allegation specifically claims?

So, you're screaming at me: I'm from LONDON it has HIGH POPULATION OF JEWISH PEOPLE!

Yes, dear, lovely point, but London also has a very high population of Muslim people, and also a high population of Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists. That does not mean that the two things are linked: i.e. there was an alleged plan to blow up a London tower block, there are lots of muslims in London, they were targetting muslim! there was an alleged plan to blow up a tower block in London, there are lots of Hindus in London, they were targetting hindus!

I mean, I could very well argue, what about the IRA bombings in Manchester? Manchester has a high population of Jews. I know that for a *FACT* because I live in Manchester. I happen to be from Manchester, and I happen to live in Manchester, and it has a lot of Jewish people! Amazing! Inside knowledge! The IRA bombed Manchester, ergo they are anti-semites and it was an attack on Jews! :mad: :rolleyes:

That's what's known as an assumption (and an incorrect one at that), not a fact, not a proven link.

Again, you haven't provided any proof whatsoever to link the alleged plot and your assertion that it was planned as an anti-semitic attack.

What about the attacks on the London Underground? There are a lot of Jews in London, *FACT*, therefore an attack on the London Underground is targetted at Jews because lots of Jews live in London and therefore lots of Jews use the Tube, therefore they were specifically targetted! They didn't look at the Gateshead metro did they, or the Liverpool underground, or the Manchester Metro? So it *must* have been targetted at the London Underground, because of the demographic, i.e. specifically to get Jews! :mad: :rolleyes:

Have you stopped to listen to yourself? To actually think about your assertions and how they are based on nothing more than random guesswork and assumptions on your part?

Anyone with a brain cell (and an ounce of consideration and compassion) wouldn't go mouthing off about how Jewish people are being targetted for attack and scaremongering.

It's good to know that you don't actually have any actual evidence to support your assumptions and assertions, and that I was, in fact, right. If there was any truth whatsoever in what you said, you'd have come back to me with real facts, real links (instead of random nonsensical ones) to prove your point.

And moreover, you'd undoubtedly have come back, laid down all the facts to support your assertions and allegations and assumptions, and invited me to eat humble pie (and incidentally, I would have done).

But no, you've proven you don't have a leg to stand on, because you can't provide that information, and because you can't you've just subjected me to a barrage of abuse. Nice one.

Scores on the doors: Ann O'Neemus 2 - Pete the Greek 0

P.S. Please feel free at any time to come to this thread with some actual facts won't you. I will still be prepared to eat humble pie if you do so.

*feels hungry, potters off to kitchen for a snack while I wait fruitlessly for my big serving of humble pie*

Pete the Greek said:
FUCK OFF Ann, you moron.

I wasn't spreading internet rumours to scare anyone you utter pious tit.

I simply observed, using a few links to help demonstrate (and if you open your eyes you'll see the evidence in the sources), that Southgate in Barnet is an area with a HIGH POPULATION OF JEWISH PEOPLE. Guess what, I'm from London...and yes.....I happen to know that this area has a high pop of Jewish people! Amazing isn't it! Such inside knowledge!

Or....a simple obvious observation.

Why else would they target an obscure north London suburban tower block you cretin? Unless they were interested in the demographic. They didn't look at tower blocks in Catford, Lewisham, or Shorditch.

it was an observation, and hey, guess what....I may be wrong! I can't prove Jews were a target, merely make an ...OBSERVATION that anyone with a brain cell would have made at least if only fleetingly in their minds. Well, those with any idea of London demographics anyway.

Fuck you and fuck off for hurling accusations and shit at me, dumb ass.
 
I'm going to bed Ann. Enjoy your midnight snack and I'll get back to you in the week on the above.

:)

adios

eta: I didn't mean to be abusing in my reply, but you really pissed me off with your accusative tone and all that crap about spreading dispicable internet rumours etc. What was all that about?

I'll get back on the above when I'm a) awake and b) not working and: LET'S TRY AND KEEP IT CIVIL.

:)
 
I don't know the truth of Pete's theory, but it would surprise me if Islamonut bombers were not keen to kill Jews. Rabid anti-semitism is widespread among stroppy Mohammedans, never mind the bomber types.
 
Didn't he live there? I assumed it was loosely modelled on the Madrid bombings where they blew up their apartment - albeit with them in it, when cornered.
 
mauvais said:
Didn't he live there? I assumed it was loosely modelled on the Madrid bombings where they blew up their apartment - albeit with them in it, when cornered.
Unfortunately, by blowing up their flat, the 'slamist gits also succeeded in killing a policeman.
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
Erm, hang on...

56 per cent
+ 52 per cent
+ 38 per cent
+ ...

Eyup! That's more than 100 per cent. That can't be right.

*scratches head, takes another look at the link*


:D :D PtG :pwned: :D
 
mauvais said:
Didn't he live there?
I think one of them did, and it looks to me (from the bit I have seen on this) more like the intention was to be to blow the flat up when the police arrived / searched a la Madrid rather than selecting the tower block as a specific target in it's own right.

But, even so, maybe they had their plans in mind when they acquired the flat and deliberately selected one in that well known Jewish enclave of Curtis House, New Southgate ... :D
 
Back
Top Bottom