(AP) Man Admits Role in Failed London Attack

[evermind]

Man Admits Role in Failed London Attack

By FRANCES D'EMILIO, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, July 30, 2005

A suspect in the failed London transit bombings admitted Saturday to a role in the attack but said it was only intended to be an attention-grabbing strike, not a deadly one, a legal expert familiar with the investigation said.

Osman Hussain told interrogators he wasn't carrying enough explosives even to "harm people nearby," the expert told The Associated Press. The expert spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the ongoing investigation, which under Italian law must remain secret.

<snip>

Grilled by a pair of Italy's top anti-terrorism prosecutors, Hussain said that months ago in London, his chief — who he identified as "Muktar" — taught him how to assemble explosives using fertilizers and stuff explosives and timers into backpacks, the Rome daily La Repubblica said.

<snip>

"Muktar urged us to be careful" La Repubblica quoted Hussain as telling his interrogators. "We didn't want to kill, just sow terror."

He's also saying that the action was motivated by anger at the invasion of Iraq, and that his group had no connection to Al Qaeda, apparently.

(Apologies if this is somehow a dupe, my search of LBN didn't find it.)

[whistle]

1. Sounds plausible, do the facts back up his story?

[evermind]

2. The police seemed confident in asserting a link between his

attack and the lethal 7th July ones, and it has been reported (by the BBC, on the basis of anonymous police sources, among others) that the explosive devices used were similar.

The official police line was that they recovered "unexploded" materials, and that the Jul 21 attack was intended to have been as lethal as the Jul 7th one, except that the explosive devices were faulty.

All these "facts" are in conflict with what he is saying, as far as I can tell.

But myself, I wouldn't place too much faith in the utterances (official or off the record) of the British police right now - there's been too much history of skewed forensics, false arrests and misleading statements by the police in other terrorist cases.

Neither would I take the word of this individual straightforwardly.

I'd reserve judgement until more is known for certain. Just my opinion there.

[jobycom]

3. You're on top of it. I'll take your advice

Seems to me that the two attacks could be connected and that the four later bombers may have not known it. Actually, I guess it's possible that those in the first attacks thought theirs would be non-lethal, too.

On the other hand, it's odd that the first four would have succeeded, and the second set of four would have all failed. Odds are against that, which would lean towards the conclusion that the second attacks weren't meant to explode.

[daleo]

4. It may be a convenience for his defense, but it may be true

The idea that the bombs were not meant to be lethal occurred to me immediately. I mean, messing up all four bombs seemed unlikely. Still, he could be taking advantage of a mistake now that he has had time to think about it. Expert testimony (experts on both sides, with cross examination) at a trial would go a long way into determining just what the bombs were meant to do, and how lethal they were meant to be.

[barb162]

5. "We didn't want to kill, just sow terror."

Somehow that doesn't sound very noble to me, let alone very encouraging in any way. He wanted to terrorize.

[daleo]

6. It could make a difference at a trial

The charge might vary with the presumed intent - if the bombs were meant to kill then attempted murder charges would be likely. If not, perhaps some lesser charge. But, I would think that there is scope for extremely serious charges either way.

[1932]

7. Looking forward to conspiracy theories about how MI6 and CIA really did it

Anyone have a crazed and creative theory liking this confession with a tin foil hat theory about how Labour and Republican Party are really behind the bombings?

[Art_from_Ark]

8. No doubt Jean Charles de Menezes would have been happy to "confess"

given what the alternative was.

[mrfrapp]

9. Extraordinary admission to interrogators by London bomb suspect

A suspected member of the 21 July bomb cell has told investigators he was motivated by the Iraq war, not religion

--snip--

The would-be bombers watched films, "especially those in which you saw women and children killed and exterminated by the English and American soldiers, or widows, mothers and daughters who were crying".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article302774.ece

One of the men arrested over the failed London bomb attacks has told police he watched videos of the Iraq war with fellow suspects, it was reported.

--snip--

According to the report, Osman indicated that he and his friends were interested in politics rather than religion. The claims will be regarded as a serious blow to Tony Blair, who has sought desperately to keep the issue of Iraq separate from the London bombing campaign.

Earlier this month Mr Blair argued: "If it is Iraq that motivates , why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government? What was September 11 the reprisal for?"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=357670&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

[truthisfreedom]

10. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. we all knew this was the truth.

we all knew it would come out. and they get it in the form of a confession.

scary stuff, truth.

[Why Syzygy]

11. 9/11?

The reprisal? Whaaaaa .. It was supposedly due to total incompetence in the 'highest' office of our land. It was because they hate us. Right?

What the Frick is the Ir*aq war about? Religion? Politics?

How stupid do these F***s think we are?

Killing by defiance. Indeed. Take a personal inventory and get back to me.

[merwin]

14. 9/11 was motivated by politics as well.

Osama hated the fact that we built a military base on his holy land. He's said this himself.

But I don't think they'll ever change from their "they hate our freedom" line.

[Why Syzygy]

19. He won.

Didn't he. No question. Just fact. Take away our freedoms. Turn our lives upside down and twisted fear. yeah. Mission Accomplished.

[Hissyspit]

12. No surprise there. n/t

[flordehinojos]

13. excuuuuuuuuuuze moi tony blair:THERE HAS BEEN NO 9/11 REPRISAL.

Bush twisted, spinned, and lied. He lied, spinned and twisted his INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ for their oil and he covered it up in a

P R E T E N S E

... that makes me wonder how many times it may have been Jenna who broke the cookie jar but it was Barbara who got the punishment for what Jenna did...because that is exactly what bush did with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. it was OSAMA BIN LADEN who, in a manner of speech, broke the cookie jar which cost us so many lives, but it was SADDAM HUSSEIN who paid for what OSAMA BIN LADEN did...and that was plain for anyone to see...go back and look at the millions and millions of people who protested the INVASION OF IRAQ even before it was invaded and occupied, some of whom were in your very own country.

you are so blind, deaf and mute

when you want tobe, just like bush and his poppy, and his mommy, and his li'l bubba jeb, are so, perhaps the truth as told to the police by a london bombing suspect will bring you down faster than any bomb or bombs could ever have. you, very much like the dictator who today sits at the oval office in these united states, deserve to be brought down!!!!!!!!!

[jobycom]

15. Such a good rant I hate to point this out, but

Blair was asking what 9-11 was a reprisal for, not saying Iraq was a reprisal for 9-11.

[flordehinojos]

16. thanks ....

so, was blair coming to the point too that he believed barbara got/gets the punishment for what jenna did/does?

perhaps a little bit too late ... so i will leave it as is.

[jobycom]

18. It was a good analogy, and it still works, no matter what Poodle Top said

[flordehinojos]

20. thanks again.

:)

[magellan]

17. Quick crib-notes for you, bLiar, since you're so uninformed

Earlier this month Mr Blair argued: "If it is Iraq that motivates, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government?"

Because the election was a sham. The Iraqis who voted didn't even know who they were voting for, and what they got was a government stuffed with coalition-backed puppets who are former exiles, religious radicals and criminals.

"What was September 11 the reprisal for?"

Decades of oppressive and wealthy regimes that were installed, armed and propped up by the US and UK, while the people under those regimes died in the millions of various causes, all directly related to the west's efforts to ensure it has sole access to and control of the ME's natural resource, oil. Ring any bells, Tony?

I thought he was smarter than this. He must have the vacuum between Bush**'s ears on loan.

[Matilda]

21. This group appear to be amateurs,

and their motivation may not be exactly the same as that of more
professional groups like those working with bin Laden and Al-
Zarquawi, which do have a religious aspect as well as political.

But this does support the warnings of all those who were always
against the Iraq war - that it would push normally moderate muslims
into carrying out terrorist attacks, so it's still a hit against
Tony Bliar.

[evermind]

22. This is the one arrested in Italy, who is also saying his bomb

attack had no lethal intent, though that aspect doesn't seem to be getting much coverage in the UK press (wonder why?)

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1665494

[Warren Stupidity]

23. There was a recent academic study of suicide bombers

that said the same thing: in general suicide bomb campaigns are not motivated by relgious fanaticism.

Here is a link to an article from Voice of America (US GOV!) discussing the study:
http://voanews.com/english/2005-07-22-voa1.cfm

"During a recent appearance on the VOA public affairs program, Press Conference USA, Mr. Pape says his research indicates that, every major suicide campaign has what he calls a secular and political goal, to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from areas the bombers view as their territory.

...

Mr. Pape says suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism, although he says religion is used as a recruiting and fundraising tool."

Also: suicide bombers, as a strategy, are very effective.

Here is the startling conclusion from Mr. Pape:

"Mr. Pape says, to defeat suicide terrorism, the United States should return to what he calls offshore balancing in the Persian Gulf area.

He says during the 1970's and 1980's, the United States successfully managed its interests in the region by not permanently stationing troops in Muslim countries, but maintaining the ability to rapidly deploy military forces to hot spots when necessary."

In other words, perhaps if we stopped fucking with them using our arrogantly deployed military might, they might stop fucking with us.

Nah, lets just continue this clash of civilizations or whatever Mr. bLiar thinks it is.