Talk:Possible 'mastermind' of London bombings captured in Egypt

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bold text==This article is speculative==

There has been no allegation that this person is the 'mastermind' behind this plot. There is a suspicion, based on his qualifications and the fact that he left Leeds recently,that he may have been a bomb-maker. No charges have been preferred against this individual so far and, as yet, no extradition request has been made.

While the circumstances warrant vigorous investigation, it must be noted that he strenuously denies any involvement. I'm from Luton, so you can believe that I want these bastards dealt with, but lets stick to facts.

Argh, if you see something wrong, please edit the article accordingly - just click "edit" at the top and get stuck in. Anyone can do this Dan100 (Talk) 10:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?[edit]

NGerda added the copyright infringement box. I believed that the photograph of Magdi Asdi el-Nashar was the infringement, however after looking into the sources, I found that "British authorities released the first surveillance photo of one of the bombers in the hours before the attacks" (from the listed ABC News source). It seems like the image would be in the public domain to me. I reverted back, replacing the image, but will wait for a more experienced user (one who knows more about copyright) to publish it. -- SoberEmu 18:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've checked the version of the article NGerda marked "copyvio" (using the incorrect method btw), and I see no evidence of it being one. NGerda obviously couldn't be bothered to state himself exactly what he thought the problem was... Dan100 (Talk) 20:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Has anyone heard or read about what the evidence is which point toward these suspects aka terrorists? I've always thought of Scotland Yard as the best; so I imagine they've got the goods on the bad guys; but I just haven't seen much in the way of evidence.

However, thank goodness the FBI aren't conducting the investigation; e.g.

“… the FBI lab stands by their conclusion of a 100 percent positive identification.” [[1]] Paulrevere2005 01:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what evidence the Met has, but it probably goes something like this:
  1. All four bombing suspects were recorded together on Closed-Circuit TV at King's Cross Station arriving from Luton
  2. All four suspects are seen carrying backpacks
  3. The bodies of the suspects have been identified by DNA (or something similar) - one suspect at each bombing site.
  4. The injuries sustained by each suspect indicate an extremely close proximity to the detonation
  5. Suspects' property contains traces of explosive
I'm sure they have far more than this, though... Pearcej 06:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Yup, that's about it. The bombers were first ID'd, mind you, by the property they were carrying with their names on them. They wanted to be known. Dan100 (Talk) 10:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
"They wanted to be known." :( -Edbrown05 10:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll buy that(the evidence).I just don't know why the autorities don't just say that since commoners like us are able to figure it out anyway? If they are going to announce the identities, why not just announce the evidence as well? If they are still trying to catch somebody; why announce the identity of the suspects/terrorists so soon? I am impressed and glad they did such a good job of quickly identifying the culprits; just curious about the degree of certainty I guess. Paulrevere2005 16:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

IS it a Frame Up????[edit]

The question must be addressed by anyone who wants to make sure the real killers are brought to justice. The history of frame-ups by government cabals is not a "conspiracy theory"'s just plain history. e.g. [[2]]... that ruse cost the lives of 68,000 American servicemen..then there is [[3]] and [[4]]. The point,in my opinion, is that the people,the voters, have to actually do some research and think about the story our governments put forth.

Now, here is the problem I have with el-Nashar being identified as the mastermind of a band of "clean skins". The known and agreed upon facts are; 1. this man is smart 2. this man has been in Egypt for some time 3. he denied being connected to the bombers and everyone who knows him finds it hard to believe 4. a pile of explosive materials were found in his bathtub in London.

These 4 facts do not compute for me. A;If he is smart he wouldn't leave or have left the explosive crap in his bathtub unless he wanted to get caught. B;If he wanted to get caught, why deny what he did? C;Since he was in Egypt for so long there would have been lots of time to plant explosive crap in his bathtub. D;If he was a terrorist, why would he be teaching at a madrasa school? Isn't that like wearing an "I'm a terrorist" button?

Now finally, and this will require some research in order to confirm or refute, (unless one prefers to just resort to name-calling)powerful interests within the USA for the past 2 centuries have had clandestine foreign policies which included and embraced frame-ups and violent attacks upon civilians in order to move populations in a particular direction and or to obtain strategic positioning geographically[[5]][[6]]

For some inexplicable reason I read a book by Walter Russell Mead of the U.S. Council of Foreign Relations [[7]] titled "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World"[[8]] a book that showed how much of a mushroom I really am; a book which shows that not only do many western leaders know about and accept the war engineering and racial/religious/cultural hate engineering accomplished by frame-ups..they actually believe it is now America's Divine duty to conquer the world ("divine providence" and "manifest destiny") and that the end justifies the means. Which explains to me..finally.."why are american troops in Iraq,Kuwait,S Korea,Saudi Arabia,Cuba etc.etc.etc." It's not because the american people want them to be there; it's because the people like Kerry and Bush and Mead want them to be there.

WHY??? 1.In order to invade and take over territory(either directly or via puppet governments) you have to have a war 2.It takes 2 to make a war;you have to have an enemy. 3.Easiest way to make an enemy is to move next door(or even into the back yard) and have a bunch of weapons pointed at the potential enemy's kids; imo.

But, prove me this f___ing book that Mead wrote; and see American history in a brand new light. Paulrevere2005 20:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not an issue whether or not we've killed people or done "bad" things in the past. It's about whats best for the people who associate themselves with "Western" either directly or indirectly. Generally goverments don't go around trying to do things which are bad for themselves. Personally I think the more places we invade the better that way we will all be on the same page, if not entirely agreed on our interpretation of the text on it. It's not about right or wrong, or good or bad. It's about us vs them. Ok so sure our goverment might not being entirely truthful all the time. But personally until they appear to be doing something which screws me over, they can do what they like. People are still capable of creating a popular uprising to prevent their rulers doing things. Just look at things like the NO2ID campaign in the UK.