who is responsible for the London attacks?

[Bob_the_lost]

Far fetched? Show me a fact that doesn't fit.

That one bomber aparently looked into his bag and yet didn't dump the bomb?

Oh look, i'm not carrying drugs at all, gee i wonder if i should keep the bag and then get onto a buss?

3 were detonated by timer, they had to be they were too close together. One was not, the time was completely different rather than an hour misplaced. How was that bomb detonated exactly? (Don't tell me, a US helicopter was following the buss and set it off when he looked?)

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

What kind of evidence are you demanding?

Family and friends expressing concern that they might do this kind of thing
Reported shouts of "Allah ackbar" before the bombs went off
A suicide note/recording/video

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Why should any of those things be present? If they were present that would be positive evidence for suicide bombing but their absence doesn't count against the theory.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Originally Posted by bigfish
Pakistan - visited apparently by one of the suspects - is a known transit point for Afghan heroin bound for Britain.

Is every visitor to Pakistan to be suspected of trafficking heroin then?

Of course not, but then is every visitor to Pakistan to be suspected of being an Al-Queda operative?

 

[oi2002]

Al right we've got a group who do have links to people very fond of suicide bombing and we have 3 detonation spaced apart by 10s of seconds. The obvious answer is self detonation. The other an hour later might be accidental or might not.

All the other shite, buying Sandwiches etc, just looks like happy consumerism knowing they'd never have to pay and their worries were over. Given these were rank amatuers with no tradecraft and when caught they had a fair chance of being subjected to enhanced interogation suicide sounds fairly resonable to me.

It makes feck all difference anyway you've just got two different kinds of jaw dropping guilibility.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Why should any of those things be present?

You answer that below

If they were present that would be positive evidence for suicide bombing but their absence doesn't count against the theory.

True again. But at the moment we have three theories that I have seen on the boards

1. They were suicide bombers who intended to die in their bombings
2. They were bungling bombers, but not suicide bombers
3. They were unwitting bombers who thought that they were carrying something else (drugs has been suggested)

Facts supporting theory 1 only
- they died in the bombings
- they were strongly interested in Islam which has been associated with suicide bombing campaigns in other countries

Facts supporting both theories 1 and 2
- they were strongly interested in Islam which is associated with an international terror group called Al-Q
- they were carrying bombs in their rucksacks

Facts supporting both theories 2 and 3
- they bought return tickets
- they put a parking ticket on their car
- they had stable family backgrounds and some had young children

Facts supporting theory 3 only
- their families and friends do not support jihad-type bombings
- they hired a car rather than use their own

Fact supporting all three theories
- they visited Pakistan, which is known both for Islamic militancy and the drug trade
- explosives were found in their car and in their homes

On the balance of evidence - the question still appears wide open. If there was a suicide note, a video or recording...reports of shouts of "allah ackbar", then the balance would be tipped - as it is I do not see conclusive evidence for any of the theories.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Facts supporting both theories 2 and 3
- they bought return tickets
- they put a parking ticket on their car
- they had stable family backgrounds and some had young children

Facts supporting theory 3 only
- their families and friends do not support jihad-type bombings
- they hired a car rather than use their own

But these are not terribly supportive things. The chances of a family supporting suicide bombings (or saying that they did when interviewed) is pretty remote in this country; many suicide bombers have had stable family backgrounds and children so that doesn't seem to be a general psychological point.

And if you knew you might be under surveillance already - which some of them were - I don't see that buying return tickets and all of that is contradictory, when it might possibly help allay suspicions in anyone watching you. It's not like they would have thought "hey, I'm going to blow myself up but I might as well save a bit of cash buying just a single". If *I* was going to do a suicide attack I'd want to make my trip look as normal as possible, right up to the point when I went boom.

 

[editor]

Facts supporting both theories 2 and 3
- they bought return tickets
- they put a parking ticket on their car
- they had stable family backgrounds and some had young children
.

None of the above proves anything at all!

The tickets have already been adequately explained and thus provide no meaningful insights whatsoever.

As for the other two claims - do you think suicide bombers are all single and all come unstable families or something?

What a ridiculous assertion that would be!

 

[editor]

Of course not, but then is every visitor to Pakistan to be suspected of being an Al-Queda operative?

No. Of course not, although if those visitors to Pakistan had just blown themselves up in the centre of London there are reasonable grounds to look into an Al-Queda connection.

Next question.

 

[Jo/Joe]

The return tickets etc could have been an attempt to cover their trail. Maybe they didn;t want to be identified as the bombers.

The drugs theory is desperate. Anything but the official version of events eh?

 

[bigfish]

... many suicide bombers have had stable family backgrounds and children so that doesn't seem to be a general psychological point.

Have you got any evidence to support this assertion?

Most of the suicide bombers in Palestine, for example, have been unmarried young men with some unmarried young women too. Their social backgrounds were mostly of crippling poverty and despair at the apparent hopelessness of their situation under the brutal and oppressive Israeli regime.

It's plain to see that the social conditions giving rise to the phenomena of suicide bombings in Palestine, are more or less absent in Beeston and Dewsbury.

 

[editor]

Most of the suicide bombers in Palestine, for example, have been unmarried young men with some unmarried young women too. Their social backgrounds were mostly of crippling poverty and despair at the apparent hopelessness of their situation under the brutal and oppressive Israeli regime.
.

So are heavy duty big time drug couriers normally from stable family backgrounds with young children then?

 

[Jo/Joe]

Have you any evidence to support your assertions bigfish? What are the backgrounds of suicide bombers in Iraq?

Islamic extremism is clearly about more than economic conditions.

 

[bigfish]

The return tickets etc could have been an attempt to cover their trail. Maybe they didn;t want to be identified as the bombers.

Yes, and the return tickets could also mean that the men thought they were coming back to Luton. Incidentally, if the return tickets were an attempt to cover their trail and they didn't want to be identified, then why were they carrying identification, any idea?

 

[editor]

Incidentally, if the return tickets were an attempt to cover their trail and they didn't want to be identified, then why were they carrying identification, any idea?

Is this tedious exercise of picking up random micro details and then projecting them into some fact free flight of conspiracy-tastic fantasy going to go on much longer?

As ever, it's awfully tedious and it's clear that as soon as your current conspira-bubble is burst with some facts, you'll swiftly move on to the next random micro detail ready for projecting into some fact free flight of conspiracy-tastic fantasy etc etc ad nauseum

 

[phildwyer]

Yes, and the return tickets could also mean that the men thought they were coming back to Luton. Incidentally, if the return tickets were an attempt to cover their trail and they didn't want to be identified, then why were they carrying identification, any idea?

No, apparently people who buy one-way tickets move up to a higher level of security concern or something. At least that's how it is with airlines. Same thing if you don't check any bags--you're much more likely to get pulled for a secondary inspection. Same if you pay in cash. If you pay cash for a one-way ticket, don't check any bags, and are of Middle Eastern descent I bet you're pretty much guaranteed a strip search.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Have you got any evidence to support this assertion?

Most of the suicide bombers in Palestine, for example, have been unmarried young men with some unmarried young women too. Their social backgrounds were mostly of crippling poverty and despair at the apparent hopelessness of their situation under the brutal and oppressive Israeli regime.

It's plain to see that the social conditions giving rise to the phenomena of suicide bombings in Palestine, are more or less absent in Beeston and Dewsbury.

Yeah, actually, I was listening to an interesting piece on C-SPAN on the subject recently, and I've been paying attention to all the other sources in the past. I'll try to dig up some links on this particular issue.

Certainly the idea of them being born of "crippling poverty" is not true; http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Londonattacks/0,,2-10-1854_1737098,00.html

 

[detective-boy]

The 4 suspects from Beeston and Aylsbury may have also been duped into believing they were doing something like this.

I know. Lets take 4 of the largest consignments of drugs we can carry down to London. Let's all go on the same train, with the stuff in bloody great rucksacks, despite the fact we're going to split up when we get there to go to four different locations. Yeah. That'll be inconspicuous ....

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Of course it's inane to suggest that one actually has to be born into crippling poverty oneself in order to be outraged and affected deeply by the crippling poverty of others.

 

[editor]

Most of the suicide bombers in Palestine, for example, have been unmarried young men with some unmarried young women too. Their social backgrounds were mostly of crippling poverty and despair at the apparent hopelessness of their situation under the brutal and oppressive Israeli regime.

From FM's link:

The typical profile of a suicide attacker is someone who comes from a good home, often has a good education, has friends and holds down a steady job.
In other words: The man who blows himself and innocent people apart on a London train could also be that nice young man who lives next door.

"Study after study shows that suicide attackers and their supporters are rarely ignorant or impoverished," says Scott Atran, a research leader with France's national centre for scientific research (CNRS) and assistant professor of psychology at the University of Michigan...

Claude Berrebi, an economist at Princeton University, carried out a study of Hamas and Palestinian suicide attackers from the 1980s to 2003 and found that more than half of them had a college education.
Fewer than one in seven were raised in poverty, compared with a third of the Palestinian population in general.

It's time to give it up bigfish as your conspiracy obsession is making you look very foolish indeed.

 

[jonH]

I know. Lets take 4 of the largest consignments of drugs we can carry down to London. Let's all go on the same train, with the stuff in bloody great rucksacks, despite the fact we're going to split up when we get there to go to four different locations. Yeah. That'll be inconspicuous ....

I'm not prepared to accept it was a set up unless someone can prove that such things have happened in the past. If such things have happened then thats another story.
If the bombers thought there was a lot of drugs/money involved it would make perfect sense for them to stick together, none of them would know if one of them was the chef and they would not be inclined to do a runner or go rummaging, once they were in the underground it wouldn't be possible to go searching through the sacks and after the mobile phones rang end of story. What was the guy on the bus doing and did the egyptian guy really make the explosives in his bath or was it military explosive?

 

[detective-boy]

If the bombers thought there was a lot of drugs/money involved it would make perfect sense for them to stick together,

Not according to all the big drug runners I've spoken to ...

 

[bigfish]

So why are the Met reluctant to use the term 'suicide bombing' at this time kyser and you're not.

Possibly because, unlike you, they choose to proceed cautiously and not pump out a series of wild speculative statements until they've thoroughly examined the facts and gathered the evidence.

Maybe you should try that approach?

No. Of course not, although if those visitors to Pakistan had just blown themselves up in the centre of London there are reasonable grounds to look into an Al-Queda connection.

Next question.

So what happened to choosing to proceed cautiously and not pump out a series of wild speculative statements then?

 

[bigfish]

The tickets have already been adequately explained and thus provide no meaningful insights whatsoever.

Where exactly have the tickets been "adequately explained" and by whom?

 

[editor]

Where exactly have the tickets been "adequately explained" and by whom?

Am I correct in assuming that you're following your usual pattern and now conveniently forgetting your last load of ill-informed claims about the social backgrounds of suicide bombers being "mostly of crippling poverty" now that they've been rubbished?

I do hope not. Please support your claim and explain why the author's extensive research is wrong.

And a credible reason for buying return tickets has been offered several times over by several posters.

 

[bigfish]

I know. Lets take 4 of the largest consignments of drugs we can carry down to London. Let's all go on the same train, with the stuff in bloody great rucksacks, despite the fact we're going to split up when we get there to go to four different locations. Yeah. That'll be inconspicuous ....

I know. Lets take 4 consignments of high explosives down to London and suicide some tube trains and bus. Let's all go on the same train, with the bombs in bloody great rucksacks, despite the fact we're going to split up when we get there to go to four different locations. Yeah. That'll be inconspicuous

 

[detective-boy]

I know. Lets take 4 consignments of high explosives down to London and suicide some tube trains and bus. Let's all go on the same train, with the bombs in bloody great rucksacks, despite the fact we're going to split up when we get there to go to four different locations. Yeah. That'll be inconspicuous

But if we were all going to blow ourselves up would there not be a reason for holding each others hands until the last possible moment? And if we've got bombs we can detonate then it doesn't really matter if we get caught, we'll just blow up Borehamwood instead ... Reasons that would not exist in the case of drug running.

Anyway, my main point was that any self-respecting major drug dealer that I know would not dream of such a transportation scheme. Unless, of course, you know differently.

I don't know why they did what they did. We may get more evidence one day but we may never know. I just think there is far too much being read into tiny factlets which can only be evidence if we KNOW why they were done, something it is highly unlikely we will ever discover for sure.

 

[TeeJay]

So why are the Met reluctant to use the term 'suicide bombing' at this time kyser and you're not. What information do you have that the Met doesn't?

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet but:

"Police have confirmed they were the UK's first suicide bombings." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4693001.stm (Last Updated: Monday, 18 July, 2005, 16:22 GMT 17:22 UK)

 

[editor]

I know. Lets take 4 consignments of high explosives down to London and suicide some tube trains and bus. Let's all go on the same train, with the bombs in bloody great rucksacks, despite the fact we're going to split up when we get there to go to four different locations. Yeah. That'll be inconspicuous

Hello? Hellooooooo?

Are you going to address the glaring inaccuracies in your bold claim about the social backgrounds of suicide bombers or are you hoping to sweep it under the carpet, move on to your next irrelevant detail and hope no one notices?

Your claim:

Most of the suicide bombers in Palestine, for example, have been unmarried young men with some unmarried young women too. Their social backgrounds were mostly of crippling poverty and despair at the apparent hopelessness of their situation under the brutal and oppressive Israeli regime.

..and the words of the well researched, accredited article:

The typical profile of a suicide attacker is someone who comes from a good home, often has a good education, has friends and holds down a steady job.
In other words: The man who blows himself and innocent people apart on a London train could also be that nice young man who lives next door.

"Study after study shows that suicide attackers and their supporters are rarely ignorant or impoverished," says Scott Atran, a research leader with France's national centre for scientific research (CNRS) and assistant professor of psychology at the University of Michigan...

Claude Berrebi, an economist at Princeton University, carried out a study of Hamas and Palestinian suicide attackers from the 1980s to 2003 and found that more than half of them had a college education.
Fewer than one in seven were raised in poverty, compared with a third of the Palestinian population in general.

So were you talking about the back of your arse bigfish, or will you be producing some credible evidence to rubbish this research?

 

[detective-boy]

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet but:

"Police have confirmed they were the UK's first suicide bombings." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4693001.stm (Last Updated: Monday, 18 July, 2005, 16:22 GMT 17:22 UK)

Just because the BBC (or any other media outlet) says "Police have confirmed ..." does NOT mean that it is an official police statement. If it is then the quote will almost always be attributed. Otherwise it may be the media using unofficial police sources (who may, or may not, know what the investigating officer is thinking), it may be some comment taken out of context or it may be the media going ahead with unconfirmed comment (safe in the knowledge that the dead can't sue).

Detectives from the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch, supported by police from a number of forces across the country, are continuing the lengthy and painstaking investigation into the detail of the attacks in central London on July 7.

The police investigation into the four bombings has led to the discovery of a substantial amount of information and many leads are being actively progressed. We are determined to follow the evidence wherever it takes us as our understanding of what happened on that morning grows....

Further detailed analysis will take many months of intensive and detailed investigation.

No mention of "suicide bombers" anywhere.

Edited by detective-boy 19.07.05 0119 <Reason for edit: Monkee-ing around to make my quotes work >