London Bombings: Part 1
London Bombings: Part 2
London Bombings: Part 3
London Bombings: Part 4
From Part 4:
I know that investigating the oddities of published reports puts me in the company of some real nuts and wackos. I also know that questioning or querying the official reports as they come in tends to aggravate some people, who don’t even want to hear it. So be it, on both accounts.
reading parts 3 and 4. Parts 1 and 2 are a little dated at this point.
Look at the Fed-created liquidity charts.
http://www.cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/07/following-money.html
Not Soj but I got so pi**ed off with CBS Evening News referring to the Edgware Road Station bomb as being at “Edgware Station” I wrote to them tonight.
Well it bugs me that Edgware Road Station is missing a second ‘e’.
You know what? Must be an American thing ‘cuz it drives me batty as well…
Pax
I find nothing that contradicts the scenario that has emerged of four young men, apparently “integrated” into British society, who became suicide bombers.
As in the case of the 9/11 hijackers, the first mission of these four bombers was not to arouse suspicion.
Why not buy a round-trip ticket? What’s a bit more money when you are going to die? The hijackers on 9/11 bought round-trip tickets as well.
Many London commuters wear backpacks, and four men carrying them would blend into the crowd. These “martyr’s belts” of explosives would not be easily concealed under light summer clothing, and men wearing heavy coats in the London summer weather might draw suspicion.
As for the men driving small autos–well, most people in London do. Again, London police have long been alerted to lorries or other oversized vehicles as possible “terrorist” vehicles, so if these terrorists were playing a very “safe” game, they would drive automobiles that would “blend” into the daily scene of London life. A Nissan Micra and Fiat Brava are just the ticket for that.
I am also having trouble believing that these men may not have been aware that they were on a suicide mission, for two reasons:
(1) If there were no timing devices on the bombs, the four would have to realise they would have to detonate by hand, thus sacrificing their lives.
(2) If there were timers on the explosive devices that had been set by a third party, and they detonated the bombs before the four agents could escape the bomb blast radius, that would mean the explosive devices were timed to explode at the precise moment the bombers set their backpacks down, or very shortly thereafter. That would require masterful planning, indeed–one that would assume the men wouldn’t get in a traffic jam,or miss their trains, or having any of half a dozen things happen that can delay travellers in London’s infamous commutes. Imagine what would happen if even one of the four somehow survived this plot to eliminate the human “evidence chain” and was captured by the police–the survivor could reveal who was behind the entire plot. No, better to find willing martyrs.
For those of you who may not be able to comprehend how these four might have turned against a society in which they appeared fully invested, try going to this link:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0119743/plotsummary
The plot of “My Son the Fanatic” explains this psychology all too well.
Given the evidence available thus far, the most likely scenario is that these four were willing suicide bombers. They set the bombs manually rather than risk the bombs being discovered and defused.
I would say that such deconstruction of the “official story” would be far more fruitful if we waited until there IS an “official story”–what we have now is an emerging narrative, a puzzle that the police have not yet completed. Anybody who knows anything about police work–and SoJ ought to know quite a bit about it through some of her past work–knows that police often pursue leads they think are solid, only later to learn that they are false.
It’s rather like trying to prove a conspiracy to assassinate JFK forty-five minutes after he was shot in Dallas–far too soon to tell.
9/11 hijackers bought one-way tickets. That’s why flying one a one-way ticket buys you a good looksee from security.
Why would you need an auto when four people are using mass transit to get to London?
Imagine what would happen if even one of the four somehow survived this plot to eliminate the human “evidence chain” and was captured by the police–the survivor could reveal who was behind the entire plot. No, better to find willing martyrs.
I disagree because your theory assumes that the four knew the entire plot and who was behind it. Keep in mind that the theory on 9/11 is that those hijackers (the muscle) did not know the entire plot, only their role in it. A need to know basis is entirely possible and likely, especially in any “cell” kind of operation.
First, we don’t know the extent of the plot. It could be these four men comprised most of the “cell” or had connections to a larger organisation. That’s because the police are still gathering the facts–which is why speculation is largely futile at this point.
Second, you are right and I was wrong–the 9/11 hijackers bought one-way tickets with cash…just one more reason why these fellows WOULD buy round-trip tickets, which is far more common among Londoners than one-way tickets.
Third, my theory follows Occcam’s Razor of preferring the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that these four were willing suicide bombers; the “they were tricked into being suicide bombers” theory assumes that the people setting the timers timed them to explode at the EXACT moment the bombers put the backpacks into place! That’s an operation of amazing precision–you’d think someone with those sort of brains would have killed far more than fifty people. My theory does NOT–repeat, does NOT–depend on the four being killed so they couldn’t be captured by police. If your theory is correct, and these four knew nothing of a wider organisation (outside the members of their immediate terrorist cell), then what was the point in killing them?
Suicide bombers are NOT an uncommon phenomenon in the Middle East–and suicide bombers, as the Israelis have learnt to their regret, and as the Americans did on 9/11, are virtually impossible to stop. The draconian measures taken by Israelis to segregate themselves from Palestinians has not stopped suicide bombings. These sort of bombings are quite prevalent in Iraq right now, as you well know, with a tragic loss of life that dwarfs the fifty Londoners killed in the Tube bombings.
Again, I refer you to the link I provided, the plot summary of “My Son the Fanatic”, a film which examined how an “assimilated” Arab or Pakistani Londoner could become alienated from the larger society and turn against its values.
First let me say I have no theory, not even a working theory because don’t know the extent of anything especially because of the conflicting reports. The reason I believe it’s important to follow as events transpire, during the investigation, is Lakoff’s Razor, whatever gets framed first becomes the explanation, and investigative due diligence requires every piece examined contemporaneously on its own merit.
Second, you used the one-way ticket to support your argument. If you believe that round trip tickets equally support your argument, it’s moot in your case.
Third Occam’s Razor is predicated on all other things being equal, not just the simplest explanation and it requires due diligence in objectively analyzing “all other things”. Probability should not exclude possibility. “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras” doesn’t mean zebras don’t exist, we know they do. In medicine, doctors must rule out the possibility of deadly zebras even though benign horses are much more probable.
What’s the point of killing the 4? How about zebras in horses’ clothing? Wouldn’t have suicide bombers without the key ingredient, dead bombers.
That the death toll is reflective of the plotters ability assumes operational intent. Consider the anthrax letters. Military grade anthrax, highly deadly and relatively undetectable at the time, yet very few deaths.
Due diligence. Examine every piece without assumptions. The puzzle may indeed picture a horse, but then again, it could be a zebra.
I’m sorry, I read your post twice and can’t quite work out what you are trying to say.
Of course anything is possible–it is possible that space aliens are in orbit, beaming mind rays upon half the population to make them think George W. Bush is a competent president. However, it seems highly unlikely.
I find it significant that none of the conspiracy theorists have addressed the key issue here, which is how these four men were somehow killed by the masterminds–again, there would have had to have been timers set off for a precise moment to kill them. This is possible but the possibility is so slender as to exclude it from rational discourse.
As for keeping an open mind–that is what I prefer. Constructing theories based on evidence, or even suspicions, is not a fruitful endeavour at this point because we have a puzzle with many pieces missing.
You say you have no theories, yet you cite Lakoff and say that whomever “frames” the issue first controls reality. Well, that is demonstrably not true–Karl Rove, for example, has “framed” his outing of Valerie Plame one way, yet people do not believe that “framing” at all. To take another example, in JFK’s assassination, the Warren Commission Report “framed” the assassination as being accomplished by a lone assassin, yet facts to the contrary were gathered and theories promulgated in the intervening years that have caused many to question that “reality”. Again, it was not the FIRST framing but skillful counter-framing based on a MORE COMPLETE set of facts.
I say what matters are the facts, and key facts–forensic evidence, interviews with possible suspects, and many other items–have yet to be assembled by the police investigating this crime.
Here’s a criminal probability comparison. Murder is the number one cause of death among pregnant women. The probability that a pregnant woman’s death is murder is very high. Yet, not all deaths of pregnant women are murder. Even though a manner of death other than murder is less likely, we do not automatically assume that murder was the manner of death. Add to that the statistic that a pregnant woman’s murderer is most likely her partner. Should we call her death a murder and arrest the husband, or should we investigate each piece of evidence?
Calling the possibility that this was anything other than 4 suicide bombers is “so slender as to exclude” is conjecture based on two factors. 1) the number of similar suicide bombings, 2) the logistics of using timers. The first is inclusion – horses and pregnant womens deaths. Because something is more often so, does not make it so. The second is exclusion based on precise timing. That’s what timers do, set a precise time or amount of time for an event.
Keeping an open mind means that you should not include or exclude the possible based on probable. The standard for law, medicine, science is not preponderance – more likely than not, or all things being equal the simplest explanation. The standard is to rule out the all likely factual possibilities. Is it likely that latest missing white woman was murdered? Yes. Is it possible that she’s a “runaway bride”? Yes.
I cite Lakoff based on a long history of framing, the rush to judgment is very real and need not include intent or malice, or the typical law enforcement definition of “framing”. Ask Richard Jewel or better yet, the 119 death row inmates who have been exonerated. When you get the government involved and the public pressure is high, it isn’t a rush to judgment, it’s the speed of sound.
As for Kennedy’s assassination, less than half, only 40% of Americans say they’re “pretty sure” there was a plot. 32% percent accept the Warren Commission’s 1964 finding. We could talk the 2004 election and number of Americans who still believed Saddam had links to al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction.
To me what matters is keeping a truly open mind on each piece of evidence, looking at each piece before ruling out a possibility because of a probability.
I’m not sure I can trust other things you say when you cite a poll that only fits your argument and ignore very real evidence.
I have provided a link to a scientifically-conducted survey with the following results regarding JFK’s assassination:
Did Oswald act alone?
YES 10%
NO 74%
WAS THERE AN OFFICIAL COVER-UP TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM LEARNING THE TRUTH ABOUT JFK’S ASSASSINATON?
YES 74%
NO 13%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/11/20/opinion/main23166.shtml
This is a far cry from the 40% figure you cited, and is proof that for the past 40 years, those who questioned the Warren Commission Report have been successful in reframing the issue for the vast majority of Americans.
Also, from that same CBS story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/11/20/opinion/main23166.shtml
I enjoy honest argumentation–but I find alarm bells ringing when someone picks and chooses facts that support a pre-existing theory, rather than forming a theory according to known facts–which is the definition of dishonest argumentation.
No, you didn’t read the entire poll and I shared honestly with you and provided the source. Go back and read in its entirety.
The question I cite is the key question testing the strength of the belief which gets beyond top of mind “opinion”. That is the heart and soul of research and what I do for a living. Take a poll and ask respondants whether they believe in space aliens. Then test the strength of that belief. Two different answers entirely. The first answer addresses possibility, the second addresses probability.
I didn’t ding your “round-trip ticket” as dishonesty, now did I? Agree or disagree but don’t go all pissy on me on information I provided to you in full.
.
By Craig Whitlock and Kamran Khan :: Washington Post
7/19/2005 LONDON – One of the suspected London transit bombers visited Israel for a day in the spring of 2003, Israeli authorities have reported as part of an international effort to re-create the travels of the four men who investigators believe set off the July 7 explosions.
Mohammed Sidique Khan arrived in Tel Aviv and left the next day, senior Israeli intelligence officials have told Israeli reporters. Investigators say they have found no evidence that his trip was related to the subsequent April 30, 2003, suicide attack on a Tel Aviv cafe by two British men of Pakistani origin.
The purpose of Khan’s trip to Israel is one of the many unknowns in the 10-day-old investigation.
Several weeks after his visit, a British-born man of Pakistani descent, Asif Hanif, blew himself up at Mike’s Place, a Tel Aviv nightspot, killing three other people. Two weeks later, the body of another British citizen, Omar Sharif, who investigators said fled the bar after a bomb he was carrying failed to detonate, was found in the sea off Tel Aviv.
Avi Tabib – Hero of Mike’s Place
[…]
New details emerged Monday on trips that three of the four suspects made to Pakistan before the attacks. Khan and Shehzad Tanweer arrived in Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, on Nov. 16 last year on the same Turkish Airlines flight, then flew home together Feb. 7, Pakistani investigators said after reviewing immigration records.
A third suspect, Husib Mir Hussain, flew into Karachi on July 15, 2004, on a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight from Riyadh, records show. Pakistani officials said they did not know how long Hussain stayed, his family in Leeds told British investigators that he was gone for about four months.
Related Diaries/Comments @BooMan by Oui
~~~
USA WELCOME: Make Yourself Known @BooMan Tribune and add some cheers!
On the forensic side, the bus and the train carriage from Edgware Road have been removed sealed in plastic tarps. The have been taken for further examination so presumably any timing devices could still be found. The three tube explosions were within a minute of each other and this suggests that either a timer or co-ordinated action by the bombers was used.
The more information that comes out about Md Siddique Khan, the more it looks like the bus bombing was an accidental detonation. With the numbers of contacts and links to other action coming out, it is starting to look like he was not an ordinary “foot soldier” but a low level organiser. If he had been involved in recruiting, training or even mentoring (his job in the school) the suicide bombers in Israel and those on the tube. Was it his intention to remain alive to carry on this work? That is also suggested by there being extra explosives found in the car and, I believe, at other locations.
A suggestion somewhere on the web is that the timers were mechanical versions of washing machine programmers. These work by making series of connections for the different functions as the timer sweeps round. If so, it gives the possibility that the timers were connected to go off at, for example, the start of the spin cycle rather than the end. That would make deceiving the tube bombers far easier.
The two car business is surely explained by the three “Pakistanis” coming from Leeds and the “Jamaican” coming from another town. I have already given good reasons why Luton is an ideal station to set off from – the backpacks would be less conspicuous among holiday baggage carried by people arriving at the airport. The Thaneslink station at Kings Cross is separate from the main suface rail/underground station and is much smaller – the ticket hall is smaller than most tube stations. They would be far less likely to be detected arriving there than on the main station concourse which is patrolled by police. Trains run by the train company LNER going through Luton terminate at the main station, the Thameslink onees pass through central London and on to Gatwick Airport and Brighton, with connections.