My Husband a Suicide Bomber? PROVE IT

[JackieO]

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2005321327,00.jpg

By JAMIE PYATT

SUICIDE bomber Lindsay Jamal’s wife last night insisted: “They’ll have to prove to me he did it.”

Pregnant Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, refused to accept Jamal was the fourth London bomber, responsible for 26 deaths. She sobbed: “He wasn’t the sort of person who’d do this. I won’t believe it until I see proof.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,2,00.html

[roguevalley]

1. Married men who do this are bastards. This poor family is left

alone to face the music. I just hate this crap.

[Vincardog]

4. Who knows better than his wife? I am with her. Or do you only

believe what you see on the Corporate Controlled Media?

[imenja]

7. I understand her position

and she is right to demand proof. It is indeed strange for a man with a young baby to act as a suicide bomber. But the wife of the BTK killer never imagined she was living with a homicidal maniac either. We often don't know people nearly as well as we think we do.

[stickdog]

13. There have been many cases of psychopathic deceit.

However, there haven't been any previous cases of life-long residents of Western, first world countries suiciding themselves in acts of mass murder because of their geopolitical/religious concerns.

[imenja]

19. we have plenty of suicide

suicide rates for men in the West are quite high. To direct one's suicide for a political cause doesn't seem a stretch to me. For a man with young children to kill himself, however, seems less likely. It is possible they were the bombers but thought they'd emerge alive, and that someone else set off the bombs through remote control. Who knows. It seems to me they have a lot more forensic investigating to do before they can know for sure.

One of British TV services (ITN or BBC) reported yesterday that authorities had revised their views of the type of explosive based on what they found in Leeds and the other place they raided. It seems to me that conclusion is better reached from an analysis of the bomb sites themselves.

[stickdog]

24. So it's never happened before in the entire modern history of Western

industrialized nations, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to you.

Interesting ...

One of British TV services (ITN or BBC) reported yesterday that authorities had revised their views of the type of explosive based on what they found in Leeds and the other place they raided. It seems to me that conclusion is better reached from an analysis of the bomb sites themselves.

Ya think?

[imenja]

29. what is so superior about the West that makes it impossible?

Men kill themselves at high rates. That much is clear. Why is it impossible to imagine a suicidal man might decide to take on a political cause? Men commit suicide by cop with some frequency.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. You're not answering the question, are you? Try again.

[imenja]

58. what question?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

65. when you are able to think of something to say

let me know. In the meantime, have a beer and calm down.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

71. all I've seen are insults

which is indeed unfortunate. You haven't even given a reason for you responses to my posts.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. "Insults"? That's your opinion. By the way, this is a message board....

...posters are free to jump in and out of threads as they please. Therefore, I don't need to give you, or anyone else, a reason for my responses to your posts.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. And you have? Interesting.

[imenja]

87. You are free to mount an argument any time

all I know is you don't like what I've said. You've provided no discussion of why, what you object to and what your own views are. If you don't want to, that's fine, but I have to wonder why you bother posting if you don't want to share your views.

[stickdog]

52. Why is it impossible to think that the sun won't rise tomorrow?

David Hume would be very proud of your line of argument here, now wouldn't he?

Does the concept of empiricism ring any bells with you?

[imenja]

57. empiricism?

What's your evidence? How many men go to war knowing they will die. Soldiers have taken suicide missions. I think if we took time to examine other political engagements, would find examples of people who took their lives in suicide protest: hunger strikers in prisons, for example. I don't know the nationality of the person who set himself on fire outside of McNamara's window during the Vietnam war, but I would be surprised if some American born Vietnam protesters didn't sacrifice their lives, or some of the other 60s radicals. The Waco crowd seems to have willingly died, as did the people at Jonestown.

My only point is that it is possible, given the high rate at which men kill themselves in the West. I don't need empirical evidence to suggest a possibility. You however have already decided that it is impossible. Seems to me that you are the one who needs to provide evidence since your assertion is absolute'

So what is so impossible for you to believe: that a Westerner would commit suicide or that anyone here cares enough about a political cause to risk their lives?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

62. that's a persuasive argument

how about some evidence from you?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

72. and what do you object to?

[stickdog]

64. Yes, empiricism. You know, the philosophy that knowledge comes from

experience.

David Hume long ago proved that it's never impossible for events to contradict even the best empirical reasoning.

It's just highly unlikely for something that's never happened before in the history of human experience to suddenly happen one day. Take the sun coming up tomorrow morning (Hume's famous example). We certainly can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. It's certainly not impossible to think that it might not. But chances are that it will, simply because that's the way it's always been in our historical experience up until today -- much like the complete lack of first world Western born and raised suicidal geopolitical/religious terrorists in the entirety of human experience up until (supposedly) last week.

[imenja]

67. your response is clearly based on emotion rather than empirical evidence

You find the idea of a Western suicide bomber uncomfortable to the point you won't think about other acts of suicide and political protest that preceded it. We don't know what the full story is, but I don't see any reason to rule out possibilities a priori as you have.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. Since you seem convinced that a so-called Westerner would be....

...capable of such an act, present some evidence that such an act has been committed in the past.

It's a simple request, really...a person of your towering intellect should be able to produce at least one example.

Take your time.

[imenja]

74. I did , see post 57

[Media_Lies_Daily]

77. No, you didn't. You sidestepped the issue. Where is an example....

...of a Westerner blowing themselves up while taking a group of complete strangers with him or her?

[imenja]

83. you've heard the phrase going postal

There were a rash of postal employees in the 80s who did just that. The kids at schools like Columbine. They generally use guns rather than bombs, but there are certainly examples of people who have gone into workplaces with bombs, taken hostages, and blown everyone up. SWAT teams are used precisely in such circumstances.

What is absent there, of course, is political motivation. Those are acts of rage. So some channeled that rage for a political cause. That's what made them different (assuming they were suicide bombers. I don't know if they were. I simply am saying it is a possibility).

Evidently you believe Westerners to be so superior to Middle Easterners that they aren't capable of suicide bombing. I don't.

[stickdog]

88. Stop bring superiority into this. No one is making any value judgments

about this except you. To the rest of us, this is merely a statement of historical fact.

Your argument basically distills down to this:

Just because there's never been a suicidal, murderous Western born and bred political/religious terrorist before doesn't mean that there's anything extraordinary about the idea.

However, isn't ANY historically unique condition the very definition of extraordinary?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

89. But you still have not presented a single case of a politically....

...motivated suicide bombing in the West, and/or conducted by a Westerner. I assumed from your previous remarks that you must have known of at least one example.

[imenja]

93. I gave examples of suicidal political acts

and non political bombings. If this was indeed a suicide bombing, it was the first in the UK by a British born citizen, though Brits have mounted suicide attacks in Iraq and the shoe bomber tried to blow up an American jet but was caught. Not sure if he was born in the UK or not, but those guys were British citizens.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

95. Okay, whatever you say.

[stickdog]

96. Right. Just no examples of any suicidal Western born and bred political

terrorists.

Which makes the supposed actions of four otherwise nondescript Britons last week unique in the post-industrialized history of Western civilization.

Which, by definition, make the reports of their supposed actions extraordinary.

Which, by the most basic precepts of empiricism, should make thoughtful people require extraordinary evidence.

Which is and has been the entire point of this overblown sub-thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. What about the one I pointed out to you already?

Is your short-term memory that bad?

[stickdog]

100. You have pointed out ZERO examples of suicidal Western born and bred

political terrorists. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.

[muriel_volestrangler]

101. See post #31 (n/t)

[stickdog]

104. See post #103. (nt)

[Tom Bombadil]

108. Stickdog,

You asked for an example of 'life-long residents of Western, first world countries suiciding themselves in acts of mass murder because of their geopolitical/religious concerns.'

One such example was cited in post #31, which completely disproves your assertion that this has never happened before.

You were wrong. Admit to it and stop trying to spin and wriggle your way out of it like a slippery eel.

[stickdog]

133. 1) The attack in Israel was not a suicide attack.

2) If the supposedly perps were aware of any attack plan at all, the attack in Israel was meant to kill Israelites in the context of the I/P conflict.

3) One other HIGHLY DUBIOUS example in the history of mankind doesn't negate my point about Western born-and-bred suicidal bombers being an EXTRAORDINARY breed for which we should require EXTRAORDINARY evidence.

But since you brought it up, let's deconstruct the Hanif/Sharif "British suicide bombers attack Tel Aviv nightclub" story.

So we supposedly have two suicide bombers, both wired for destruction. They both go to the same bar. Hanif puts his device close to the front near the musicians. Hanif then approaches the device "to activate it" according to witnesses. It immediately explodes. In response to this, Sharif immediately flees the scene. Another unexploded device is later found at the scene, and 12 days later Sharif's body washes up on the Tel Aviv shoreline.

Does that sound like a suicide attack to you? Do suicide bombers generally operate in pairs with both targeting the exact same location? Do suicide bombers set down their bombs and then come over from where they are sitting to detonate them? Do unsuccessful suicide bombers fleeing the scene first decide to divest themselves of the explosive devices they've strapped on under their clothes? Do they they then commit suicide WITHOUT trying take any Israelis with them by drowning themselves?

Just wondering ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. Your evidence for your version?

Because here's the reports that I find:

Police said the bomber detonated his hidden load after trying in vain to push past a security guard into the club. "The place was crowded with young people for a jazz and blues night," said Israeli national police spokesman Gil Kleiman.

"The security guard prevented a huge catastrophe. I saw people running away in flames, some without skin. It was shocking. Mike's is more of a tourist place," a woman witness who was in a pub next door told Israeli television

Reuters

A witness identified only by his first name, Gil, told Army Radio that the guard at the bar prevented the bomber from entering. Israel Radio quoted witnesses as saying the guard argued with the bomber before the blast.

"The boom was just outside the entrance," said the owner of the bar, Gal Ganzman, his shirt covered with blood. "The security guard must have stopped him."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85539,00.html

A suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt at the entrance to the "Mike's Place" pub on the Tel Aviv boardwalk.

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=30286.EN

Intial reports state the security guard at the restaurant tried to wrestle the terrorist to the ground when the terrorist detonated his explosives. The security guard survived the attack and is presently fighting for his life in hospital, according to the Israel police.
...
Israel radio reports that the suicide bomber had detonated a lethal waist belt explosive which destroyed the restaurant's entrance, leaving only broken glass and twisted metal hanging from the ceiling.

http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/2003_04_29.html

Sounds like suicide to me.

By the way, since your argument was that 'westerners' wouldn't commit suicide for their cause, Richard Reid is a perfectly good example - whether he had the competence to achieve it is beside the point. And Bobby Sands and the nine other IRA hunger strikers who starved themselves to death are also relevant - again, they show that westerners are quite willing to martyr themselves for their cause.

[stickdog]

151. It's sounds like suicide to you because the media told you that.

Use your brain. Think for yourself.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=294817&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The Institute of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv yesterday confirmed that the body washed up on a Tel Aviv beach last week is that of Omar Sharif, the second British would-be bomber at the beachfront Mike's Place last month.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3666703.stm

Just before 0100 (Israeli time), presumably when the bombers thought the bar was full to its capacity - they completed the last of their preparatory acts," Mr Laidlaw said.

"Hanif was seen by a witness to approach to activate the device. "


http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/2251.htm

In the bombing, which occurred at crowded Mike's Place next to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv just after 1 a.m. Wednesday, Hanif blew himself up when a security guard prevented him from entering. Sharif was also wearing an explosive belt that malfunctioned; he scuffled with bystanders and fled the scene. Police found the belt and neutralized it.


Now ask yourself, how do the police know Sharif was wearing this belt? How do they know this belt "malfunctioned"? They don't. All they know is that somebody left another unexploded explosive belt at the scene.

If the explosive belt had "malfunctioned" and Sharif was actually both wearing it under his clothes and prepared to die for his cause, why would Sharif have taken off his clothes, removed his explosive belt and left it at the scene BEFORE fleeing the scene?

Isn't it far more LIKELY that Sharif, if he was actually wearing an explosive belt at all, removed it in terror when the one his friend approached unexpectedly exploded?

Finally, when it comes to Richard Reid, I'm sure that there are more than a handful of mental patients who suffer from terrorist delusions but, quite thankfully, that doesn't make them actually capable of terror.

[muriel_volestrangler]

171. OK, let's use the full quotes from those pieces

"When the trial resumed, Jonathan Laidlaw told the jury the two men had decided to blow themselves up long before leaving for the Middle East.
...
The two bombers were seen talking together just before the attack, and left their passports and money in a skip so their identities would be discovered."

Leaving your passports and money in a skip? Is that the move of someone who's about to make a getaway after planting a bomb? No.

Nowhere in that piece does it say that Hanif took off his belt. It says he approached - that is, he approached Mike's Place, as is perfectly obvious when you read all the other accounts, like the one you also linked to:

"Hanif blew himself up when a security guard prevented him from entering."

How do the police know that Sharif was wearing the belt? Because there were eyewitnesses who scuffled with him at the scene. He would have left it there because he didn't want to be captured with it on him - if they capture him alive, he might get interrogated, which would do his cause no good at all. Or, they may just shoot him in the street - again, not the effect he's looking for.

Face it, when someone puts on an explosive belt, they know they're a suicide bomber. It's not the kind of thing you take off in a bar without people noticing it. To think that people would have the intention of leaving a couple of them behind is, frankly, idiotic. Not that I think you're idiotic - you're just desperately trying to maintain a position that Hanif didn't commit suicide, in the face of all the evidence and opinions of the IDF, media, Hamas etc.

[stickdog]

174. Lots of sound and fury there, muriel, but still signifying nothing.

Please stop using corporate media to do your thinking for you.

How do the police know that Sharif was wearing the belt? Because there were eyewitnesses who scuffled with him at the scene.

Really? Eyewitnesses scuffled with him at the scene, but somehow let him take off of clothes, unfasten and remove his explosive belt and still get away? Any links to back up this ridiculous claim?

He would have left it there because he didn't want to be captured with it on him - if they capture him alive, he might get interrogated, which would do his cause no good at all. Or, they may just shoot him in the street - again, not the effect he's looking for.

You can't be serious. Why again was it more important for him to DRAW ATTENTION TO HIMSELF by removing his clothes and taking off his explosive belt than to immediately flee the scene? Please consider your credibility when answering.

[muriel_volestrangler]

176. How about ALL the links that have been used so far?

Serious? Not only am I serious, so is the IDF. So is Hamas. So is absolutely everyone who has investigated this - except you, it seems. However, I'm glad to see that you've stopped denying that Hanif was a suicide bomber - which was the original point.

[stickdog]

177. Everybody agrees except anybody who can think for him or herself. (nt)

[RandomKoolzip]

114. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber?

Maybe?

[stickdog]

136. Umm, part of actually BEING a terrorist rather than a pothead loser with

such delusions, is actually possessing the MEANS and COMPETENCE to pull off such a venture.

[conservdem]

149. Whether he detonated the shoe bomb or not, I think he succeeded

in creating terror (at least for some of the passengers on that plane).

Does this change your view?

[Vincardog]

124. Ever heard of the IRA?

[stickdog]

134. Ever heard of SUICIDAL IRA bombers?

Didn't think so.

[Voltaire99]

168. "Politically motivated suicide bombing in the West"

Workplace murder-suicide in the United States presents an obvious analogy.

Mind, the political act need not be ideologically-driven. The political is often, if not always, the personal measure of power: one's own in relation to others.

The rampaging former employee who kills other employees may be seen as engaging in a political act. Like a terrorist bombing, those mass murders distribute suffering as revenge for the perceived injury.

It is in America, strangely enough--loudest home to such fictions as the superior "civilized" west--where this practice is most popular.

[American liberal]

117. Two days ago a woman in a suburb of Chicago

drove her car at 70 mph into the back of another car in an apparent suicide attempt. She's still alive. The three men in the car she hit are dead. She's a Westerner. Based on the very limited info. I got from MSM, it was not politically motivated. She was suicidally depressed.

[stickdog]

80. But those aren't even close to examples of people who knowingly and

willingly committed suicide in murderous acts of politically or religiously motivated terror.

Just answer one question:

Since the idea of a suicidal Western born and bred terrorist strikes you as so damn likely and reasonable, then WHY HASN'T IT EVER HAPPENED BEFORE?

[tenshi816]

111. What about Richard Reid, the shoe bomber?

Just because he didn't succeed, doesn't mean he didn't try. People are forgetting about him now.

[stickdog]

140. He not only didn't succeed, he DIDN'T HAVE THE MEANS OR

COMPETENCE TO SUCCEED!

http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=news4103&Category=news&Subcategory=0

Hoping to ensure that the "shoe bomber" ends his days in prison, federal prosecutors released new details Tuesday that show Richard Reid tried six times to light a bomb in his sneakers aboard a trans-Atlantic flight a year ago, and was so determined that he melted the end of the bomb fuse.


Perhaps a BLASTING CAP would have helped this poor pothead loser with his grand plans to become a murderous martyr? Just a thought!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1732520.stm

Agent Cronin, a specialist in airline crimes, said preliminary tests on his shoes showed they contained enough explosives to blow a hole in the side of the aircraft.

" if placed beside an outer wall could have or would have created a large hole in the fuselage of the plane.


But he simply bent down to light his shoe. He didn't take it off and hold it up to the outer wall, now did he? So exactly what was this idiot hoping to accomplish other than blowing his own legs off? And why the hell did he ask for an aisle seat when he booked his ticket?


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/06/shoe.bomb/?related

Reid was assigned to an aisle seat near the middle of the aircraft

[tenshi816]

144. My point is, he may have been a particularly inept terrorist

but the desire to terrorise was there.

My second point is, if you don't live here, when push comes to shove you really know nothing about what's going on in the UK and what it's really like to live here. There's not one single city in the US that has a proportional Muslim population that matches any of the cities in the UK, yet you feel qualified to appoint yourself as some kind of expert on UK life. If you don't live here, how on earth can you presume to know how things are here? No wonder people hate Americans, because no matter what happens anywhere on the planet, there's always loads of people in the States ready to stick their oar in to give the rest of the world the benefit of the superior knowledge that Americans hold on every subject.

This arrogance apparently extends to liberals as well as conservatives.

Edited to say: Before you start querying my assertion about Muslim population proportions, why don't you check out Wikipedia's entry for Bradford, West Yorkshire, which is the nearest city to me. More than 20% of the nearly 1/2 million population is S.Asian, most of it from Pakistan. Can you think of any American city with a similar demographic? You cannot speak authoritatively about an environment you don't live in, and we can do without your sense of knowing all.

[stickdog]

146. Reid was NOT a terrorist by definition.

Furthermore, what exactly have I stated about British culture other that the EMPIRICAL FACT that no individual born and raised in Britain or any other Western first world nation has ever before knowingly and willingly participated in a suicidal terrorist act?

Do I really have to be some sort of an expert on British Muslim culture to make simple a statement of historical fact?

I never even mentioned Muslims as a demographical class. You are the one who was compelled to do us all this "favor." I can't help but wonder why.

[stickdog]

75. What are you talking about?

I don't find the idea of Western suicide bomber uncomfortable in the least.

I'm merely pointing out the EMPIRICAL FACT that there's never existed such an animal before in the history of mankind. This EMPIRICAL FACT doesn't make the idea of such an animal somehow suddenly appearing last week, today or in future in any way impossible or inconceivable. However, it does EMPIRICALLY inform us to require extraordinary evidence when we are confronted by such a claim.

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Do you understand anything about the philosophy that underpins the scientific method?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan

[imenja]

78. what has never existed?

suicide? clearly it has. People who have given their lives for political protest? I provided examples do you of where that has happened in the West.

What has not happened is a Westerner blowing themselves up in the name of Islam, or rather someone born in the West. The 9/11 hijackers were educated in Europe and the US. Islmaicism is a recent political development, so terrorist acts are new. It is also an empirical fact that terrorists never blew up trains or buses in London before two weeks ago, but it happened didn't it? Or have you decided the entire event is a fiction of the corporate media?

It would be nice to believe that Westerns are constitutionally incapable of doing this sort of thing, but I see no reason to assume they are. Given the high rates of murder and suicide in the West, people are quite clearly capable of virtually anything.

[stickdog]

82. So, if Westerns are constitutionally capable of being kamikazes,

why don't we use knowing and willing kamikazes in Western military operations?

This should be good ...

[imenja]

86. Is it genetic?

so there is an Arab suicide gene that is neutralized for those born in the West? Check out the WHO stats on international suicide rates. http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicideprevent/en/

[stickdog]

91. When backed into a corner, do you always ignore the question and

instead ask another question?

[imenja]

109. okay, Kamikazes were a japanese tactic

The fact that American pilots didn't adopt a Japanese tactic tells you it is absolutely impossible for a Westerner to ever act as a suicide bomber? Why? Your argument that nothing happens that hasn't happened before is absurd. Everything has a first time. The question is, why are you so CERTAIN that such a Westerner could never do such a thing. Your sense of cultural superiority is astounding. And so typical.

[stickdog]

145. Who has said ONE WORD about "cultural superiority" except you?

Who do you think that US generals in WWII thought had "culturally superior" pilots -- the Japanese or us? Do you think they wouldn't have taken steps to mitigate our military disadvantage if they could have?

No one but you has made a SINGLE cultural value judgment in this entire thread. All I have done is endeavored to point out the EMPIRICAL FACT that -- before last week -- no Western born and bred individual had EVER knowingly and willingly participated in a successful suicidal terror attack motivated by geopolitical/religious concerned.

For those who present the supposed Hanif/Sharif "suicide bombing" of an Tel Aviv jazz club as evidence to the contrary, I say that, at minimum, this bombing was not knowingly and willingly suicidal. And even if you insist on ignoring common sense to suggest otherwise, I would simply append to my above statement the words "carried out against any target other than Israelis in Israel" and the point remains.

[Tom Bombadil]

152. You keep changing your story.

You've changed your original statement about four times now. Make up your mind and stop moving the boundaries everytime someone contradicts you.

Also, how do you explain the Hamas video in which Hanif and Sharif admit to wanting to kill Jews. I suppose you'll say it was doctored, or that they were brainwashed, or that they were being forced at gunpoint?

[stickdog]

156. Oh, please. Is that the best you can do?

I never said that born and bred Westerners were not prone to politically and/or religiously motivated violence. There's nothing WHATSOEVER historically unique or strange about that. It's the KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY SUICIDAL element that's historically unique.

Furthermore, not only is there NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Hanif and Sharif planned to commit suicide that night, but basic common sense strongly suggests otherwise:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/2251.htm

In the bombing, which occurred at crowded Mike's Place next to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv just after 1 a.m. Wednesday, Hanif blew himself up when a security guard prevented him from entering. Sharif was also wearing an explosive belt that malfunctioned; he scuffled with bystanders and fled the scene. Police found the belt and neutralized it.


Now ask yourself, how do the police know Sharif was wearing this belt? How do they know this belt "malfunctioned"? They don't. All they know is that somebody left another unexploded explosive belt at the scene.

If the explosive belt had "malfunctioned" and Sharif was actually both wearing it under his clothes and prepared to die for his cause, why would Sharif have taken off his clothes, removed his explosive belt and left it at the scene BEFORE fleeing the vicinity?

Isn't it far more LIKELY that Sharif, if he was actually wearing an explosive belt at all, removed it in terror when the one his friend approached unexpectedly exploded?

[Tom Bombadil]

157. You still haven't answered my question.

How would this duping of the bombers work. Were these supposed unwilling bombers tricked by Hamas? Come on you tell me, what happened?

[stickdog]

161. Is this some big mystery? They were told to leave the explosives

somewhere and either set a timer or else somehow detonate them from a distance.

Even more likely, they were told to meet a contact at the bar to whom they were supposed to deliver their explosive belts.

When Hanif exploded unexpectedly, Sharif understandably freaked. Why else would Sharif have taken the time to strip off his clothes and remove his belt before fleeing the scene?

[Tom Bombadil]

163. Do you have any evidence that

supports these claims? 

'They were told to leave the explosives somewhere and either
set a timer or else somehow detonate them from a distance.

Even more likely, they were told to meet a contact at the bar
to whom they were supposed to deliver their explosive belts.' 
 

[stickdog]

165. Nice sidestep. Now answer my question.

Why else would Sharif have taken the time to strip off his clothes and remove his belt before fleeing the scene?

[Tom Bombadil]

167. Thanks. Couldn't possibly do that.

Not whilst I still have some unanswered questions. Off now, until next time.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

84. "Terrorist acts are new"? Here's a brief list of terrorist acts....

...in the U. K. The truth is that the U. K. has a long history of terrorist bombings:

<http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/london_bombing/uk_historyattacks.html>

"1974:
In February, a motor coach carrying soldiers and families in northern England is bombed by the Irish Republican Army, killing 12 people. In October, a series of bombings in British pubs kills 28 and leaves over 200 injured. The IRA claims responsibility.

1982:
Eleven people are killed and 50 wounded in July when two IRA bombs detonate in London's royal parks.

1983:
A Harrods bombing in December kills six people including three police officers. The IRA claims responsibility for the attack on the department store on one of the busiest shopping days of the year, just before Christmas.

1984:
An IRA bomb kills five people at a Brighton resort in October, during the annual conference of the Conservative party. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband escape injury, however two cabinet members are injured.

1988:
In December, a Pan Am jet crashes in Lockerbie, Scotland, after a bomb on board explodes. All 259 passengers are killed, as well as 11 in Lockerbie.

1989:
In February the IRA bombs an army barracks at Tern Hill in Shropshire. No one is killed.
In September an IRA explosion at a Royal Marines Music School in Deal, Kent, kills 11 people and wounds 22.

1991:
The IRA fires mortar bomb at Prime Minister John Major's London office in February. No one is injured.

1992:
Three people are killed after a car bomb explodes outside the Baltic Exchange in London's financial district. Ninety-one people are injured.

1993:
In March two children are killed in a bomb blast in Warrington, northern England. The explosives were placed in a garbage can. In April, one person is killed by an IRA bomb in the Bishopsgate area of London's financial district.

1996:
In February, two people die when IRA guerrillas detonate a large bomb in London's Docklands area. The same month an explosion rips apart a bus in London's Aldwych area, killing the IRA bomber and injuring nine others.

2001:
In March, a powerful car bomb explodes outside the BBC's London headquarters. Police say the Real IRA, or RIRA, a republican splinter group opposed to the IRA's ceasefire, claims responsibility. One man is wounded."

[imenja]

92. obviously

Islamic terrorism, assuming that's what this is

Clearly the IRA attacks were very differ nt from these. The IRA generally called to give warnings in advance. The point wasn't to maximize casualties.

But they never blew up three subway trains and a bus within in an hour in London before did they. New things happen all the time. Just because something hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen again.

[stickdog]

94. Why do you think the IRA (or any Western terrorist group, for that matter)

never uses suicide bombers? Do you think it's genetic?

Or perhaps you think that Islam makes the Westerners who follow it more predisposed to killing themselves in acts of poltically motivated mass murder?

Regardless, please answer one question:

WHY HASN'T IT EVER HAPPENED BEFORE?


You said:

Just because something hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen again.

Techically, it does. How can something happen again if it hasn't yet happened the first time?

[imenja]

106. they may have

I don't know. You are the one who has argued it is absolutely impossible for a Westerner to carry out a suicide bombing.

I know IRA prisoners took their lives in hunger strikes. I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some suicide bombings, though likely by accident.


So evidently if something hasn't happened in the past it can't happen in the future. That is empirically unsound. Everything has a first time.
Men went to the moon for the first time in the Apollo missions. The Trinity test 60 years ago was the first time an atomic bomb had exploded. Humans flew for the first time in the early 20th century. Computers were created for the first time. Your argument is entirely absurd.

[stickdog]

143. You obviously have no idea what word "empirically" means.

So evidently if something hasn't happened in the past it can't happen in the future.

I've never argued as much and you know it. David Hume noted the fallacy of this statement in the 18th century and I heartily concur with his famous and long standing analysis.

What I have been saying is:

When confronted with claims that something that's never happened before in the history of human experience has now happened (or is now happening) for the first time ever, the most basic precepts of empirical reasoning tell us to demand extraordinary evidence before blithely accepting such extraordinary claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Is there something about my ACTUAL line of reasoning that you dispute?

[Tom Bombadil]

110. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE see post #31

[stickdog]

137. The attack in Israel was not a suicide attack. See post #133. (nt)

[Zynx]

120. Suicide for causes is nothing new

The Nazis and the Soviets proved that religion was not at all a prerequisite for completely suicidal actions. The Viet Cong did the same - the US Embassy attack was a suicide squad.

Two members of Delta Force hopped off their helicopter in Mogadishu to take on a few thousand people. You going to tell me that wasn't suicide?

Several of the plots for killing Hitler involved suicide bombing.

We conditioned tens of thousands of people in our missile and bomber forces during the Cold War to engage in actions that would mean almost certain death - either one-way bomber missions or sitting at the controls of your missile silo until the Soviet warhead landed on you.

Generally, the people engaging in this behavior weren't bombers - although I'm sure there were more than a few cases of people deliberately hiding grenades on themselves or something like that - but they were still all engaging in actions that would mean certain death.

For that matter, military forces - the good ones anyway - condition their soldiers that their life is less important than the success of an operation.

Otherwise, military forces simply wouldn't work at all because a great deal of what a soldier does on a daily basis is biologically irrational in the extreme. Giving your life for your country or your religion is fundamentally idiotic. You get no benefit, especially in those cases where there is no belief in an afterlife.

This mindset isn't confined at all to the Middle East. The fact that they think they are getting heavenly rewards may make it easier for them to embrace a plan that specifically involves dying, but that's about the only difference.

[stickdog]

139. If so, the question then becomes: Why hadn't there been a SINGLE

successful suicidal terrorist attack undertaken by a born and bred first-world Westerner against his or her own countrymen before last week in the entire history of industrialized Western civilization?

Please regale us with your explanations for the completely and utter historical lack of an event that you obviously find so eminently probable.

[conservdem]

150. What do you see as the closest or most similar attack ??

[stickdog]

153. None of the above.

IF (big if) we can believe the media reports that this was in fact a suicide bombing, then there is not a single even remotely similar attack has ever happened before.

Not one

ever

in the entire history of industrialized Western civilization.

[daleo]

90. I think they are back to the crude homemade bomb theory

I have heard use of acetone (nail polish remover), etc.

First it was homemade timer bomb, then military grade with timer, then military grade suicide bomb with timer, now crude suicide bomb. I don't know about timers now.

The theory of this case has changed a lot. Uncomfortably so, although I wouldn't necessarily call it a pack of lies. It may just be the stages a crime investigation goes through. I am withholding judgment for now.

[stickdog]

98. It might be the stages ...

or it might just be staged.

TBD

[bettyellen]

148. Jamaica is the first world?

i don't know why any one is hesitant to believe he'd do this because he had a baby and one on the way. it appears that he was unemployed. a lot of men in that situation bail or do something stupid. why do men usually go ballistic? family/ girlfriend wife control issues + losing their job/ authority with the family.
recent converts are usually stronger, more rigid "followers" than those who grew up within a faith. look at the studies, there's nothing in his backround tha makes him seem more innocent than any of the others.

[stickdog]

173. That's only because NONE of them fit the profile of suicide bombers.

Furthermore, in the past terrorist bombers almost always committed suicide only when there was no other feasible way to complete their mission.

So tell, why did these guys supposedly commit suicide? Just for the hell of it?

[Angry Girl]

123. You said it! Didn't *ANYONE* watch Arlington Road!?!?!? n/t

[JackieO]

129. Yes.

Twice. :)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. Spare me. Tell me why you believe the husband did it.

[Spinzonner]

2. How many pieces does she need for proof ?

:-(

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LivingInTheBubble]

5. She has a point

the government and security forces word isnt enough for her? :-O Gosh i wonder why...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1107957414503_41?s_name=&no_ads=

[stickdog]

8. How dare this poor misguided widow not convict her husband of

suicidal mass murder when corporate media tells her to!

[MattSWin]

12. I don't think the media planted

A backpack full of explosives on the guy.


The BBC isn't corporate media: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/4689757.stm

[stickdog]

16. No, they just said that he was carrying them, and you, of course,

unquestioningly believed them.

See how much easier that was than actually having to physically plant anything?

[MattSWin]

22. ....

Yeah of course someone just hands you a bag to carry and you unquestioningly do it..just doesn't happen.

[stickdog]

25. How does ANYONE know what's in ANY of these bags?

X-ray vision?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. So, in your vast experience in dealing with this particular subject...

...you don't think there's any way that someone could be handed a backpack and told to return it to "xyz" since "xyz" was on his way?

Got another question for you. How often in the past have we seen suicide bombers blow up a bus, or some other target, and the media was able to immediately report that a suicide bomber was involved?

How come the media didn't say anything about suicide bombers being involved until 24-48 hours after the London bombings?

Could it be possible that suicide bombers WEREN'T involved?

Could it be possible that Blair and his staff are attempting to milk this terrible event for everything they can get?

Gee...who else do we know like that?

[MattSWin]

30. ...

Yeah of course, it's one big conspiracy. ;)

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MattSWin]

43. ....

I don't buy into conspiracy theories by anyone, whether right-wing or left-wing.

[TheWatcher]

47. No you just blindly follow speculation

And proclaim it as the truth.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. So, I guess you believe those 19 hijackers just wandered onto those....

...four planes on September 11, 2001, and without knowing each other, decided at the same time of the morning to hijack those planes? Of course, the real question remains to be answered...who were they really? And the next question is, who directed them to do what they did and what was their motive? Who benefitted?

How about the people that collaborated with Lincoln's assassin?

How about the rightwingers that tried to launch a coup against FDR back in the 1930s?

Conspiracies happen all the time, and they are well-documented throughout history.

The only time we are told that conspiracies didn't exist was for the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, Jr, as well as the attempted assassination of Reagan. We're told that those acts were carried out by "lone-nut gunmen", despite evidence to the contrary.

[LibertyorDeath]

169. Well

Just because they are a national public broadcaster doesn't mean they
are not amenable to towing the corporate line.

They are a corporation after all.

[imenja]

6. it is difficult to imagine how a man with a young child could do this

Of all of the cases, this one seems the oddest, though I don't know how common it is for suicide bombers to have children. I've always imagined single men were far more likely to be suicide jihadis.

[stickdog]

10. And how many spent years helping disabled children?

Khan also had an 8 month old baby girl and an again pregnant wife. He was a Pakistani who married an Indian for love. Does that sound like a highly political suicide bomber?

For that matter, can you think of a single terrorist who was born and raised and spent their entire life in a first world nation who killed dozens in an suicidal act because of geopolitical or religious antipathy?

I can't. And yet we are all supposed to blithely believe -- without any evidence stronger than unsourced anonymous hearsay -- that these four otherwise unassuming characters simply "broke the mold."

[MattSWin]

18. ....

Well Im believing the fact these guys were attached to bags with detonated explosives in them.

[TheWatcher]

You have no facts that these were the people who did this.

none whatsoever, and you cannot provide a single link that proves this.

All you can link to is an article with unnamed sources with nothing verified.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Asif Hanif killed 3, injured 55

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3543269.stm

If it helps you, Khan had separated from his wife.

[stickdog]

44. Who made that claim about Khan and his wife being separated?

Where the hell was Khan living if that was in fact the case?

And the number of people killed makes no difference. The act is still historicially unique, yet you accept it unquestioningly as if it were something that happened every day.

Why?

[stickdog]

103. Interersting isn't it that five days ago, when British investigators were

claiming that the bombs had timers, were made of high grade military explosives and were set on the floor, the police in Israel had already managed to make the connection between this event and the London bombing?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85555

Explosives Used by Terrorists in London and Tel Aviv Identical
18:16 Jul 11, '05 / 4 Tammuz 5765

(IsraelNN.com) Israel police have revealed that the explosives used in the multi-pronged terrorist attack in London last week were materially identical to the explosives used by two British Muslim suicide bombers who struck in Tel Aviv more than a year ago.

It is unknown at this time if the apparent explosives link points to an Israel-based connection, or if it points to a common source of materiel outside both the UK and Israel.

[stickdog]

160. There's no evidence than Hanif planned to commit suicide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3666703.stm

Just before 0100 (Israeli time), presumably when the bombers thought the bar was full to its capacity - they completed the last of their preparatory acts," Mr Laidlaw said.

"Hanif was seen by a witness to approach to activate the device. "


http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/2251.htm

In the bombing, which occurred at crowded Mike's Place next to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv just after 1 a.m. Wednesday, Hanif blew himself up when a security guard prevented him from entering. Sharif was also wearing an explosive belt that malfunctioned; he scuffled with bystanders and fled the scene. Police found the belt and neutralized it.


Now ask yourself, how do the police know Sharif was wearing the explosive belt they supposedly found at the bombing scene? How do they know this belt "malfunctioned"? They don't. All they know is that somebody left it at the scene.

If this explosive belt had "malfunctioned" and Sharif was actually both wearing it under his clothes and fully prepared to die for his terrorist cause, why would Sharif have taken off his clothes, removed his explosive belt and left it at the scene BEFORE fleeing?

Isn't it far more LIKELY that Sharif, if he was actually wearing an explosive belt at all, removed it in terror when the one his friend approached unexpectedly exploded?

[sweetheart]

50. It rather makes sense for the same reason

Perhaps leaving a little DNA dropping is something that many men feel
is a final accomplishment before they die. As if through biological
DNA, you obtain immortality at death and become wise. It is a fallacy,
but one need only look at our own culture and the fixation on baby
making as if its a holy act... when in fact, its just an economic
burden, and enough people are popping out babies to grow the world
population way too far already.

but the medai drives it home, you've got to reproduce to show you're
life has been worth while... and once you've spilt the sperm, what is
left but to die for your god.

[stickdog]

53. So you are saying that having kids leads to religiously motivated suicide?

Do you have any basis for this claim other than the fact that it sounds reasonable to you?

[sweetheart]

105. Not causative

Having kids is considered in many cultures to be the perpetuation of
one's good name, as if "you" are actually living vicariously through
the lives of your "grandchildren." This is the sort of thinking the
republicans put forward, that the family is superior to the indivdiual.
That sort of thinking does indeed, make having kids a box to check off
when you're completing your pre-terrorism life accomplishments.
And most republicans have done exacty that, so there is some merit
to the theory.

[MattSWin]

9. ....

I wonder what she thinks he was doing wearing a backpack with explosives in it. Was that just a coincidence?

[stickdog]

11. Um, what makes you think this guy had explosives in his backpack?

Just wondering ...

[MattSWin]

15. ....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15945202^2703,00.html">Lyndsey Germaine, believed to be in his late 20s, was said by security sources to have died when he detonated his rucksack bomb as the southbound train pulled out of Kings Cross, killing at least 26 people and himself.

[stickdog]

17. So unnamed sources say something, and you simply believe them.

No wonder Judith Miller became so successful ...

[MattSWin]

21. They weren't anonymous sources..

It was a report by Scotland Yard.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. Who specifically from Scotland Yard? Got a name?

[stickdog]

32. You mean, like when the FBI told us who all of the 19 hijackers were

(or rather what their supposed names and/or aliases were) just hours after 9/11 despite having absolutely NO WARNING before 9/11?

BTW, can you direct me to a link where I can read the supposed Scotland Yard report in full?

[bettyellen]

138. hours? i don't think so.

try again.

[stickdog]

158. The FBI released the names of 18 hijackers within 60 hours of the attacks.

But, of course, they had NO WARNINGS WHATSOEVER before the attacks.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/

[bettyellen]

164. yes, commonly referred to as days.

hours implies, well, less than a day. just trying to be more accurate here.
:)

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. How do you know he just didn't happened to be

another poor sucker who got stuck standing next to or near the thing, just like the rest of the victims. Oh, he had brown skin, he must be guilty.

Unless you happen to work for Scotland Yard, you don't know shit about the circumstances surrounding this fellows death, do you?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MattSWin]

33. ...

The BBC is corporate media?

[stickdog]

36. No. it's state sponsored media.

You know, sort of like state sponsored terrorism.

[TheWatcher]

39. Exactly.

The point is he will believe anything unnamed sources say without any shred of proof. People like this take it all at face value.

Why bother?

[architect359]

55. exactly

why bother discussing anything with you either?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. Right. Great comeback. Next.

[TheWatcher]

99. And exactly what do YOU have to contribute.

Have at it.

[tenshi816]

112. The BBC is publicly funded -

by the taxpayers. If you want to own a TV in Britain, then you have to pay an annual licence fee to do so. The BBC is a corporation and we, the viewers, are the shareholders, and as such the Corporation has to answer to the public. You make it sound as if the BBC is like Pravda, which simply isn't the case. I wish people in the States would learn how things work in the UK before making presumptions.

Edited to add a few words.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. Who owns the BBC? Answer your own question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Me, a little bit (n/t)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. Nice non-answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Non-answer? Go on then, you answer.

Who do you think owns the BBC?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. The British government is the owner of the BBC....

...and that tells me all that I need to know.

If you think you have partial ownership of the BBC from your license fee, you're either sadly mistaken or totally delusional.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. It has nothing to do with the licence fee

It's because I'm a British citizen. It's perfectly obvious it's nothing to do with the licence, because you don't need a licence to receive the BBC.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

79. Okay. What does that have to do with ownership of the BBC?

[tenshi816]

116. We are the shareholders in the Corporation.

That's what our licence fee entitles us to. The British public owns the BBC.

[tenshi816]

115. See my separate post on this thread.

The British Broadcasting Corporation is owned by the viewing public, who are required to pay an annual licence fee to watch television. We are the shareholders in the Corporation. In effect, we are the sponsors, not the State.

[MattSWin]

27. ....

Well I'm guessing all the victims weren't white except these four guys.

Secondly, I think autopsies can tell the difference between victims getting hit by debris flying away from the bomb and a suicide bomber hit by blowback from a bomb.

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. From what I just read in another article

None of the 'bombers' had the packs on their backs. If that is truethen it is very difficult at this point to know if he was a bomber or just standing next to it.

[tenshi816]

118. There are photographs on the front pages of Britain's newspapers

today, taken from CCTV footage, of them entering Luton station with big backpacks. Just FYI.

[DoYouEverWonder]

121. Someone who got killed is seen on tape

entering the station carrying a back pack. So?

Everyone else who got killed is probably on tape entering a train station. Many of them carried backpacks too. So now everyone who carries backpacks is automatically guilty?

[tenshi816]

127. Well, considering the photos show them all together

entering the station, I think that says something.

Edited to say: with backpacks with them as they entered the station.

[stickdog]

155. The photo shows 4 blurry brown/black folks who may or may not be

traveling together. Nothing more and nothing less.



Can you see the actual evidence or do you just see whatever they tell you to see? Can you tell the difference?

[stickdog]

154. Nothing could be more convincing than this photographic evidence!

See?



By God, it's a perfect match!

Four blurry brown and/or black people in a row, all wearing backpacks just screams out TERRORIST to me. How about you?

[JackieO]

159. How could there be any question!?

Case closed!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Right. What about the people standing or sitting next to him? Wouldn't..

...it look like THEY could have detonated the same bomb?

[stickdog]

38. The BBC also reported that these bombs had timers and were set

on the ground.

Why use a timer for a suicide bomb? Why set the package on the floor of the train or bus?

[mirandapriestly]

56. I wondered about the timers , too.

I noticed that the original reports tend to all dissappear and no one questions why they have changed their stories or stopped reporting certain information.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

61. Bingo. Nice response!

[Hav]

102. .

Do you know the movie Arlington Road? That was some scary and depressing shit...
I don't want to want to make final judgements because I simply don't know enough or use this movie as a basis for an argument. This discussion just reminded me of this movie and how innocents became the obvious criminals and suicide attackers for the public.

[LibertyorDeath]

170. "was said by security sources"

So you take at face value everything or anything a "security source"
says without question.

Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4071709

[MattSWin]

41. ....

I'm betting all of these news stories will end up being correct. But people who already have their minds made up about these guys being innocent will never believe it.

[TheWatcher]

45. You can bet on whatever you like

It doesn't make it the truth.

If you choose to follow unnamed sources with no verifiable concrete facts and believe it as the gospel truth. you are welcome to it.

But it doesn't make you informed.

Nothing has been verified about these four yet.

What you "believe" is pure speculation.

Thanks for playing.

[stickdog]

48. You are the one with your mind made up. We are the ones using

critical thinking skills to carefully examine the information that is being fed to us rather than simply jumping to the conclusion that those feeding us this information are so obviously demanding.

Let me be clear when I say that anything's possible and the accused could be burning in hell right now for their horrendous acts of wanton murder.

But I, unlike you, am simply not 100% CONVINCED that they're guilty just because the media keeps insinuating as much.

[Henny Penny]

128. I think that you are wrong about their European

upbringing preventing them being suicide bombers, as Muriel pointed out.

But that does not mean that they were suicide bombers...IMHO.

[stickdog]

162. When did I say anything about anyone's European upbringing?

All I ever said was that it is an EMPIRICAL FACT that -- at least before last week -- no Western born and bred individual had EVER knowingly and willingly participated in a successful suicidal terror attack motivated by geopolitical/religious concerns.

That's all. Muriel and imenja are the ones who keep trying to read some sort of cultural tea leaves out of my simple statement of historical fact. Why this has never happened before is utterly ancillary to my point -- which is simply that:

1) Any event that is historically unique is BY DEFINITION extraordinary

and

2) We should require extraordinary evidence before simply accepting an extraordinary claim as valid.

[muriel_volestrangler]

172. Except that you're wrong - Hanif did so.

And everyone (Hamas, the IDF - for fuck's sake, when those two agree, you have to listen) say it was a suicide bombing. What we're saying is that your 'empirical fact' is wrong.

[stickdog]

175. Everybody agrees except anybody who has thought it through for him or

herself.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/2251.htm

In the bombing, which occurred at crowded Mike's Place next to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv just after 1 a.m. Wednesday, Hanif blew himself up when a security guard prevented him from entering. Sharif was also wearing an explosive belt that malfunctioned; he scuffled with bystanders and fled the scene. Police found the belt and neutralized it.

If this explosive belt had "malfunctioned" and Sharif was actually both wearing it under his clothes and fully prepared to die for his terrorist cause, why would Sharif have taken off his clothes, removed his explosive belt and left it at the scene BEFORE fleeing?

Isn't it far more LIKELY that Sharif, if he was actually wearing an explosive belt at all, removed it in terror when the one his friend was wearing unexpectedly exploded?

Just try answering the questions using your own brain this time. Please attempt to trust your own cognitive skills. The corporate media, Hamas and the IDF can't help you here. You have to figure it out for yourself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

178. No. It isn't more likely. It's a belt.

If they meant to leave the explosives at the bar before they exploded, they wouldn't have used belts. Try 'figuring that out yourself'. Use your 'brain'.

Sharif sees Hanif explode when Sharif hasn't got into the bar.Then he tries to get his own to go off, and it doesn't. So, he's stuck with a malfunctioning belt. He panics. Some people try to stop him getting away, but fail. He's stuck with a moderately heavy belt that might blow him up, sometime, but he doesn't know when, because it's gone wrong. If he ditches it, he might get away, to get back to his accomplices, and try again - or, if he's caught, he'd stand a chance of saying he had no idea about the bomb, even if it's a small chance. If he's caught wearing an explosive belt (which the Israelis will make him strip down to), they may well shoot him on the spot, or they'll take him in, interrogate him, possibly torture him, and he might give away secrets. All in all, ditching the belt seems like a good move.

I have absolutely no idea why it's so important to you to show that these two people didn't want to commit suicide. I really can't see what your agenda is. I do know you have nothing in common with me. I wonder if you're living in the same world as the rest of us.

[stickdog]

179. Do you actually believe what you just wrote?

Face it. Sharif took off the belt because he freaked out when his friend Hanif was unexpectedly blown to bits. My scenario makes perfect sense, while yours is strained beyond belief.

Furthermore, consider that, in your ridiculous scenario, Hanif and Sharif are in fact the first suicidal born and bred Western terrorists in history. Which makes them EXTRAORDINARY by definition. Which means that you should be demanding extraordinary evidence before accepting such claims as valid.

And what do you do instead? You invent outrageously irrational excuses in order to believe something that's never happened before in the entire history of Western civilization happened -- even in the face of a far more reasonable alternative explanation.

Why? Why is it so important to you to believe that born and bred Westerners have been suicidal terrorists when it's never happened before in history and you have no compelling reason to believe it happened in London OR with Hanif and Sharif other than the say-so of some official organizations and media outlets with obvious agendas?

[Henny Penny]

125. I hope you don't bet too often.....

It is not possible for ALL the news stories to be correct (unless we start getting into quantum mechanics.....)

And as far as I am aware no-one has said they have made up their minds that these guys are innocent.

All that has happened, is what usually happens here, (as I'm sure you are aware). That is, people approach the issue with an open mind and discuss the possibilities that arise from whatever information is in the public domain.

You are new Matt and so I hope you can learn to open your mind and not just accept everything you are told.

[sendero]

107. They weren't suicide bombers...

.... they were homicide bombers. Only thing is, their "handlers" really didn't want them around after the crime, so the timers were somewhat shorter than they were supposed to be.

[sleipnir]

113. That's because he was an unwilling participant.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I'll probably get this deleted, but each day I'm believing more and more those 4 young men were not on the tube/bus of their own volition. What's the real solution...after the banning of CT on this subject, I can't give you my speculation. Except that it involves blackmail and the young men thinking they were only on a training exercises for a corporation or MI-5/CIA. Perhaps I've read one two many Robert Ludlam novels, but there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. The facts are starting to come together and they don't point to a suicide bombing, they point towards something more sinister.

[Zynx]

119. Sorry, explosions are insanely easy to plot to the point of origin.

You find everything blown out on a straight vector away from the blast. Draw the lines back to where they intersect, then figure out what was there. That's exactly what any explosives investigation - accident or otherwise - does. In an attack like this, a victim will only be on one vector of the blast. The bomber will be in the middle of them, and probably be tossed in several different directions as well.

If Lindsay Jamal was standing at this point as Scotland Yard seems to think, otherwise they wouldn't be saying he did it, he had the bomb on him. End of story.

[stickdog]

166. "Explosions are insanely easy to plot to the point of origin." EXACTLY!

Which explains how investigators knew so quickly and so certainly that the bombs had been placed on the floor:

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050712/ZNYT03/507120398

On Saturday, Andy Hayman, who is in charge of Scotland Yard's antiterrorism unit, announced that the four bombs set off in London each contained less than 10 pounds, or 4.5 kilograms, of explosive material. Mr. Hayman said that investigators had determined by the shape of the twisted metal that the bombs had most likely been placed on the floor of the trains, near doorways. He said it was unclear whether the bomb on the bus was on the floor or on a seat.

Weird how Scotland Yard somehow missed the fact that Lindsay was lying down on that train's floor the first the time around, isn't it, Zynx?

[eleny]

122. My heart goes out to her

Of course she's dazed and confused. I'd be out of my mind. Her life and that of her baby have now gone to complete shit.

[Gay Green]

126. According to this article it was likely to have been a dirty trick

on the bombers as well as an act of terror on the London commuting public.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742951%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2d58%2d%2dwas%2dit%2dsuicide%2d-name_page.html

EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?
By Jeff Edwards

THE London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden.

Police and MI5 are probing if the four men were told by their al-Qaeda controller they had time to escape after setting off timers. Instead, the devices exploded immediately....

The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding _ a train at Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry "Allah Akhbar!" - "God is great" - usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb.

Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items. Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material.

More at the link.

[tenshi816]

130. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong,

but I never believe anything the Mirror says without confirmation from serious papers. The Mirror makes the NY Post look like a class newspaper.

[leftofthedial]

131. I am highly suspicious of the official story here

suicide bombs with timers? I don't think so.

[confludemocrat]

132. Just a thought, maybe she's "in denial" (?)

And as time passes she will come to recognize stuff she missed at first. But what a fucking nightmare. Maybe not many or none here can feel the rage he probably felt as a Muslim and the others as Arabs and Muslims about what was being done to an Arab and Muslim country and/or to Islam itself.

Meanwhile, the affluent, comfortable UK masses, seemingly against the war, had done nothing to stop it, just the opposite and more or less enabled it by reelecting one of its chief architects and a world champion Bush lapdog.

My guess is that discussion will not be had even in enlightened, liberal Britain.

[bassman79]

135. We should ALL DEMAND PROOF!!!

Good for this widow to demand proof. We all should demand proof from the gov't. Normally, we call that a "trial". But since the perpetrators of these "terrorist" attacks always seem to kill themselves either in the attack, or later like in Madrid. Since the terrorists since 9/11 always kill themselves, there's never any need for a "trial", or for the gov't to provide "evidence" to back up their claims of what happened.

As the Church Lady would say:
HOW CONVEINENT....

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. Have you heard of an inquest? (n/t)

[ConfuZed]

147. When I saw his picture and name I started having doubts myself

I think they just picked these young men because they needed scape goats and some sort of closesure I'm sure all of this will come out in a few years and I hope the families are compensated very well for the hell they were dragged through.