July 7 bomber called his comrades before exploding
Seems the No. 30 bus bomber called his accomplices shortly before his bomb exploded. But they were already dead.
He did not try to contact anyone else, which suggests there was no “mastermind” or that he did not want to implicate them, said Daniel Sandford.
The most likely explanation was that he had tried to board the Northern Line, but it was closed, so when things started to go wrong he tried to phone his co-conspirators, he added.
Terrorism expert Michael Clarke, of King’s College, said the calls showed Hussain was in a panic and probably rang his accomplices to make sure their bombs had exploded.
The bomb attacks killed 52 people and injured over 700. Three of the four July 21 bombers are in UK custody with the fourth awaiting extradition from Italy. Another 11 people have also been arrested.
Gary, if the “official” story was correct he would surely have known his “accomplices” were not alive.
Why would he telephone dead people?
I wonder what was really going through his mind?
What could be the purpose of these tit-bits of info?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 25, 2005 @ 4:55 am
What does this mean?
The desperate calls were made with “increasing panic”, according to sources quoted in London’s Evening Standard.
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA1372281124907094A000?source=PA%20Feed
The article you referenced above suggested he was just checking his chums were dead.
That was mischevious interpretation by that journal.
We can only speculate what might have been going through his mind?
Some further CCTV image and coronial evidence might assist.
When might we get that?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 25, 2005 @ 5:16 am
Sounds like we will not be seeing the evidence soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4133564.stm
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 25, 2005 @ 7:10 am
Looks like we will. You are funny with your conspiracy stuff. He was spotted on CCTV going into McDs at Kings Cross, and again inside the ‘restaurant’. Ill find the link. I think he was seen on his phone and aggitated. Have they only just found this or has this far more pressing investigation been usurped by St Jean.
Comment by AF — August 25, 2005 @ 11:18 am
Gary, does not any suggestion of “secret trials”
alarm your better insticts along with the possibility that it could be years before the evidence is tested?
I ask again, have you accepted the end of the rule of law?
Trial by media is hardly acceptable - or is it?
Media generated assumptions are driving foreign policy yet nothing has been established as fact before a constituted judicial examination.
Do you not see even the slightest danger?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 25, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
Mr B,
Media generate assumptions can indeed be damaging. But muzzling the media so they can’t say anything until the official version comes out is surely not what you’re suggesting?
For all its faults, the press obsession with scoops and getting to the truth first means they keep the authorities on their toes. Our rulers may try to get away with things but they know very well that if a journalist gets just a sniff… they’re finished.
GM
Comment by Gary Monro — August 25, 2005 @ 6:38 pm
I agree completly in freedom of speech.
What I call to question is that if you interperate all information through a “Muslim conspiracy theory” lens without regard to possible interpretations that point toward a threat of a different nature you are denying those you acuse of justice.
You begin every thread from assumptions that are unproven.
Your interpretation is religious.
I am, on the other hand pleading that there may be other explanations to piece together the facts and make sense of the world.
I plead we practice the rule of law and test the evidence.
Gary, you express amusement that I have a conspiracy outlook but it seems to escape your own judgement that it is those who condemn without testing the evidence that are promoting the conspiracy theory.
You have abandoned the judicial process that is the foundation stone of civilised society but you seem not to notice.
That is one of the strategic objective of the “war on terror” and these other events.
No doubt, instead of observing the results and thinking through the motivations and possible beneficiaries your regular logic is to presume incompetence.
Incompetence in tracking Bin Laden
Incompetence in Iraq policy.
Incompetence in dealing with third world poverty.
Incompetence for introducing multi-culturalism.
Incompetence in solving the Palestinian issues.
Incompetence in welfare.
Incompetence in eroding our freedom.
My approach is to read my history and understand the strategies of power and finance that have been played out for thousands of years.
One fundamental lesson of history is those who trust governments and power do not have freedom for long.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 25, 2005 @ 8:10 pm
I’ve just realised something about you, Brooks. I’ve read about you before. In Chesterton’s ‘Everlasting Man’. Let me find the quotation…
“The materialist theory of history, that all politics and ethics are the expression of economics, is a very simple fallacy indeed. It consists simply of confusing the necessary conditions of life with the normal preoccupations of life, that are quite a different thing. It is like saying that because a man can only walk about on two legs, therefore he never walks about except to buy shoes and stockings. Man cannot live without the two props of food and drink, which support him like two legs; but to suggest that they have been the motives of all his movements in history is like saying that the goal of all his military marches or religious pilgrimages must have been the Golden Leg of Miss Kilmansegg or the ideal and perfect leg of Sir Willoughby Patterne. But it is such movements that make up the story of mankind and without them there would practically be no story at all. Cows may be purely economic, in the sense that we cannot see that they do much beyond grazing and seeking better grazing grounds; and that is why a history of cows in twelve volumes would not be very lively reading. Sheep and goats may be pure economists in their external action at least; but that is why the sheep has hardly been a hero of epic wars and empires thought worthy of detailed narration; and even the more active quadruped has not inspired a book for boys called Golden Deeds of Gallant Goats or any similar title. But so far from the movements that make up the story of man being economic, we may say that the story only begins where the motive of the cows and sheep leaves off. It will be hard to maintain that the Crusaders went from their homes into a howling wilderness because cows go from a wilderness to a more comfortable grazing-grounds. It will be hard to maintain that the Arctic explorers went north with the same material motive that made the swallows go south. And if you leave things like all the religious wars and all the merely adventurous explorations out of the human story, it will not only cease to be human at all but cease to be a story at all. The outline of history is made of these decisive curves and angles determined by the will of man. Economic history would not even be history.”
In short, attributing everything to economic factors is ridiculously stupid.
Comment by Dumb Brit — August 25, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
DBrit, hardly credible posting a quote from another and attributing a view to me without any substance.
Why fixate personally on me instead of challenging the arguements I present with some substance which may assist us all to think our way towards the truth.
I always describe things in terms of the political complexities and the dimensions of human nature.
I point towards finance as a central instrument in directing human affairs because the purest form of systemic power lies in the monopoly over the creation of our money supply.
The US federal reserve creates out of nothing billions of dollars most days of the week.
This money is loaned into existence in various debt or security instruments.
This is just the apex of a banking system that is loaning money “debt” into existence at millions of points around the globe expanding the money supply steadily to finance our activities. Money costs nothing to create.
Whomever has the levers of money creation under their control governs mankind.
I have come across very few who have a grasp of the “credit creation” process.
Most people hardly have a clue where the money supply originates or what the terms and conditions of it`s creation may be or could be.
Most importantly many have no comprehension of the difference between a money system controlled and directed by the agencies of the people for the “democratic” and just aims of the community as apposed to a Monopoly control over the credit creation process benefiting those who hold the monoploy.
By suggesting some knowledge of these subjects is essential towards an understanding of events I certainly never dismiss individual character or spirit but I might suggest that in this age there is great freedom to extend the boundaries of human endurance and discovery as long as you do not threaten “Power”.
Those that do see adventure and responsibility in confronting the crimes of power at first are dealt ridicule and “looney” smears by willing but unconscious assistants. This behaviour is a trained response. The “conspiracy theory ” chant begins despite our history books revealing that conspiracy behaviour is the prominent theme of power strategy. Hate laws and racial vilification charges come next draining the resources and allies of the critic.
David Kelly was delivered the final “suicide” treatment for his lack of obedience.
Gary, I have located the articles that report on CCTV of the “agitated” Hussain at the Big Mac outlet.
You appear to once again presume this supports your “Muslim conspiracy theory” which of course it does no such thing.
Of course we would need to have the evidence before a court to evaluate exactly what it might point towards but as far as I have read the behaviour of this gent could be attributable to many different possible scenarios.
I presume the statements attributed to Hussein are text messages or recorded voice messages left on answering banks. A true account of this material would certainly be interesting.
All the media comment I have read, like yourself, interprete what are inconclusive comments under the assumption that your conspiracy theory is correct.
It remains unproven. In fact there appears to be a large number of issues that should prompt doubt. I have drawn attention to these on previous threads.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 25, 2005 @ 10:33 pm
Gary, I have located the articles that report on CCTV of the “agitated” Hussain at the Big Mac outlet.
You appear to once again presume this supports your “Muslim conspiracy theory” which of course it does no such thing.
Erm, Mr Brooks,
I’ve said nothing about a Muslim conspiracy or MacDonald’s.
I just posted a short piece on an article I found interesting; I’ve drawn no conclusions, supported no hypotheses, advanced no theories. Nothing.
The story interested me simply from the human angle; a desperate man calling his comrades in a panic - but they were already dead.
That’s all.
GM
Comment by Gary Monro — August 25, 2005 @ 10:45 pm
Gary, you wrote …..
“We know, of course, from the July 7 and July 21 bomb events that at least some of the most murderous people in our midst are actually British traitors. Quite possibly some of their support network, mentors, suppliers and financiers will also be British.”
The three suspects in British custody that planted the 21/7 devices killed no one.
It has been suggested that there was no intention to kill, just a stunt.
We await the evidence before a court.
The 7/7 event is completly obscure. Very little proven.
We no little yet your assumption above has convicted these suspects of murder.
If you feel my judgement has been harsh Gary,
I offer my apologies.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 26, 2005 @ 12:42 am
Gary, you also led this thread with the following unproven statement.
“Seems the No. 30 bus bomber called his accomplices shortly before his bomb exploded.”
“bomber” and “accomplices” {to bombing}
I would argue these are completly unproven accusations.
CB
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 26, 2005 @ 12:59 am
Mr B,
You leave me in the amusing situation of having to fisk my own statements:
You quote me from a post:
“We know, of course, from the July 7 and July 21 bomb events that at least some of the most murderous people in our midst are actually British traitors.”
In the course of these two events - on 7 July and 21 July - 52 people died in deliberate bomb blasts. That’s ‘murderous’. I don’t have time now to check but several (all?) of the bombers were British; their bombings were directed against British people. They are, therefore, ‘traitors’.
We surely know enough to be able to say that some of the people who exploded - or intended to explode - in London were British. Or are you suggesting the identities and nationalities of the first lot are completely unknown?
You also quote me as saying
“Seems the No. 30 bus bomber called his accomplices shortly before his bomb exploded.”
Do you suggest that the chap who blew up with a bomb wasn’t a bomber and the people who also blew up - within minutes of each other - weren’t part of a conspiracy?
If four men are shown on camera to have stood together chatting a short while before all four went off and separately exploded on public transport vehicles I would suggest strongly they were in it together.
It’s one stonking great big coincidence if they weren’t!
Help me out here Mr Brooks. Tell me what you really think. Say something concrete. Go out on a limb and assert something. Be bold, reckless even. (I just know how you’ll respond to that suggestion!) But tell us something, provide the evidence and let us chew on it.
I’m an advocate of asking questions and I do see the sense of your careful, don’t-jump-to-conclusions approach - I really do. But you’re not providing a counter-weight to anything we read or hear - often from people who don’t have an axe to grind - and the questions you pose each day are too vague to actually direct us to new ideas; rather they just cloud the issue. I do mean this respectfully; it may just be a fault in the human blueprint but sometimes we need something solid to grasp - if only so we can reject it.
I get the impression that you believe in massive - and we’re talking gargantuan here - conspiracy, involving just about everybody on the planet except us bloggers. I usually don’t hold with conspiracies because the minute they involve more than a few people they’re nigh on impossible to keep together. There’s always somebody with more to gain by spilling the beans than keeping mum.
But provide some assertions or, at least, some possibilities - with at least something to back it up - and I for one will be happy to debate on it.
Thanks,
GM
Comment by Gary Monro — August 26, 2005 @ 11:23 am
Gary, I thought my view was already clear.
If we do not defend the rule of law and expect honesty and transparency from government we are taking a dangerous road.
Ian Blair and Tony Blair have both been exposed as liars along with others.
If as citizens we tolerate any lie as acceptable then we can not know the truth or otherwise is ever being presented.
The lies are killing people and will kill more if they continue.
It is not beyond the relms of possibility that the Luton four are completly innocent.
I don`t claim to know for certain but I have a great deal of knowledge about the murky behaviour of staged terror that can be researched by any who would take the time.
I referenced the German farce because it revealed typical behavior of manufactured
propaganda crime.
It is not for me to bring forward concrete evidence because I don`t condemn these gents as criminals and defame their families and communities without judicial examination of the evidence.
I believe that it is not rational to accept the charges made against these men without evidence.
The backgrounds and lives of the lads, lack of convincing motive, astonished families and the stream of fraudulent propaganda assertions through the media that have been proven false lead me to intelligent conclusions that this may be a false flag operation.
Political convenience for the war policy along with the Blair and Bush agenda at the time also raise questions.
I have observed and studied political behaviour over my life and through our history books and like an engineer or baker I know the nature of my subject. Politics is primarily about power, and the nature of power is always conspiracy.
To think othertwise is to be blinded by power, or
to be gullible and childish.
Most people I find are too busy with their own personal affairs to confront the troubles of the wider world.
If those who wish to have power over you can convince you that incompetence and failure is the theme of the human drama they remain undetected and free to impose their monoploy idea without protest from you.
You may even assist the project with apologetics and reasoning that tries to make sense of a society that walks toward a future most do not desire.
Our human nature and the physical world have been created with a generous abundant potential.
Our performance is far to often mediocre or miserable failure.
I certainly believe that it is a ferocious love of truth in all things and a steadfast dedication to it`s application that this abundant reality is released for our benefit.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — August 26, 2005 @ 9:26 pm