Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Observer Leak of Government report

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750139,00.html -- "attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the internet, that there was no 'fifth-bomber' and no direct support from al-Qaeda". Robneild 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Human rights

"These attacks gave Britain a chance to impose new "anti-terror laws" that infact denied human beings many of their human rights."

I suggest that this line is clearly POV - or if not certainly needs to be expanded on.

I.E

What laws? Were they considered before 7/7? In what ways are they denying anyones human rights? Is the right to life, that is not to be blow up by terrorists, more important than any other right?

It certainly doesn't need to be part of the introduction, if the autor can substantiate this claim then it would certainly need its own section.

---

kjhkjkh

• The above statement is rather stupid, given the fact that you have NOT verified WHO commited these acts, but just base your opinion on the rumour that it was an al-Qeada like attack of suicide bombers. I state here (and see also my remarkt below, starting with PROTEST) that the established FACT is that this was an act of STATE TERROR, not some martyr suicide action. The facts show this correctly, but this Wikipedia article is not referring to such facts, instead is ridiculing them and placing them as a "conspiracy" theory (as if the official story is NOT a conspiracy, btw!) which amongst other things also SHOW that the main article and that rumour page, are based on biased POV and inaccurate KNOWLEDGE of the ESTABLISHED FACTS.

For your convienence, let me name just two VERIFYALBLE FACTS which proof me right:

• • The bombings occured at the EXACT locations and time at which an anti-terror drill was being performed. This is well documented and factual, a media coverage can be found on the 'rumours' page (which is of course wrongly placed, since it is FACTUAL and not rumour!!!)

see: www.prisonplanet.com/video/london_terror_games.wmv WMV of London Terror Games]

• • The bomb explosion occured BELOW from the trains, and not IN the trains, as several witnesses and the damage done to the subway trains can clearly proof.

Several other facts in conjunction with this, also exists, which proof beyond reasonable doubt that the government and media (most of them) are lying (unknowingly or on purpose) about these events, and treat them as suicide attacks. In reality they are acts of STATE TERROR. And for THAT reason, of course it can be shown that the government has paved the way to enact so-called anti-terror laws. These laws do not prevent terrorists acts (since first, why did the government/secret agencies commit such horrible crimes against their own citizins??? To "protect" them against terror????? You're being very naive!!!), they just make it possible for the government to provide a greater control about the people, paving the way to a police state and corporate state, without civil liberties.

Heusdens 05:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Could people who clearly are in need of psychological help please stick to UFO / Elvis is alive / Grassy Knoll and "It-was-the-Jews-what-done-it" type websites and leave this one alone? There is a whole page here devoted to "I thinks Aliens did it" statments for you to rant your twaddle. There is NO hard, tangable, physical or even circumstantial evidence to even suggest anyone other than than 4 identified young men commited the act. If as some have allenged, that these men were just other victims, then for four people to travel to London together (for no other reason, unless anyone can correct me), then separate in four differnt directions, only all to suffer the misfortune of all being victims of a terror attack by a third party, does seem statistically improbable. Coupled with the videos that this was their inteded method of taking their own lives. The fact that an exercise was taking place at the same time proves only that the emergency services (and this was a privste company doing an exercise) have emergency exercises. This is not proof. Secondly the damage done to the trains does not prove the explosion was from underneath. This was a rumour that was from an innocent comment by a firefighter in which he stated how something appeared. Finally, Gill Hicks saw Jermaine Lindsey detonate his bomb, which removed both of her legs. Unless anyone is suggesting that she is part of the conspiracy and had both her legs amputated to make her story more credible (the probably is someone!) that just about wraps it up for me. Nutters, please stick to Davis Ickes website. DETCORD 16 Aug 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.224.216 (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dublin & Monaghan bombings

I tried to insert this under the historical comparisons section, considering it was committed by the Ulster Volunteer Force- a 'Terrorist' organisation operated and funded by Britons whose aim is to defeat the seperatist PIRA and maintain the union with Britain:

"1974 UVF bombings of Dublin & Monaghan (35 dead)"

The insert was promptly removed with the editor saying it is a UK only discussion. Though the article mentions Spain, Japan, and France in the context of underground attacks. Does this mean there is no space in the article for the WORST atrocity in the Troubles because the bombers who left the UK, carrying bombs made in UK, on the orders of UK citizens, ended up over the border in rushhour Dublin? Doesnt appear to make much sense. Fluffy999 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[Racist comment removed. See page history.] Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

06 / 07 / 2006 video

The article really needs updating to reflect the video that was released yesterday. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5156592.stm I would do it but I'm really not sure I'd be able to manage to keep it NPOV. --81.107.39.205 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

WikiPedia Timelapse Added on March 18 -- 172.208.158.213 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Interesting idea, but how was it done?--Shtove 22:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Civilians

Is it necessary to say "Fifty-two people (all of them civilians)". I'm not denying that these people were civilians, but it seems unnecessary to me. The fact that it was a terrorist attack on a public transport network implies that they were civilians. If there had been an attempt to target non-civilians then perhaps we could go into more details but it just seems unnecessary to me. The Madrid bombing, Mumbai bombing and Bali bombing articles don't mention that they're civilians (well Bali does mention they're tourists but that's a significant fact). The September 11th attacks article does mention civilians but from a quick look through, it's primarily in relation to the military/political targets Nil Einne 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur that it's unnecessary, and removed it. -Aude (talk contribs) 17:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Home addresses of bombers

93.114.74.2 has added the exact addresses occupied by three of the bombers and the postcode to the fourth, which already had the house number. I notice there is also a workplace listed for the relatives of one. While of course factually accurate, is this a very sensible thing to do? Nick Cooper 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the exact numbers of the houses, some family members still live at some of these addresses as they are often just that the family home. The street names can stay i think but could an admin please delete the info from all records.Hypnosadist 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Addresses reduced to towns only. Names of family members removed. This is potentially highly dangerous and should on no account be in the article. Please let me know if there's any problem. Please keep a careful watch on other material, and if in doubt (and not with cast iron verification) please delete. Tyrenius 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have requested Oversight blanking of relevant history. Tyrenius 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This has now been done. Reinstatement will be viewed extremely seriously. Tyrenius 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other people investigated

I have removed this whole section which makes serious observations about living people. There is only one reference at the beginning for one person, apart from infowars.com which is not an acceptable reference in these circumstances. This should not be reinstated unless there are solid verifiable references provided, for example national newspapers, not small scale web sites. Tyrenius 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No conspiracy drama please

Please do not add conspiracy theory external links to this page. Thank you. And yes, they are conspiracy theory sites and sprout the usual conspiracy nuttery: controlled demolitions, amateur image "analysis," prisonplanet.com, ... Weregerbil 14:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy drama? This article is as POV as any article related to War on Terrorism... I'd suggest we merge "rumors and conspiracy theories" right here, right now. Would love to hear your opinions on such take, and please don't throw conspiracy tin foil crap at me, for it does offend, and I wont take it… Case is simple; those warnings are well cited, as well as "Simultaneous Exercise" section… Why would such well cited and well known information be torn out of subject matter? Well, they shouldn't… As those before me, I protest! Lovelight 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No merge drama will occur. Weregerbil 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to provide better arguments than that, as you may have noticed I'm a bit tired of all this (whatcyougonnadoaboutit;) drama… Lovelight 15:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think further arguments or drama are needed. Weregerbil 15:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It boils down to this. The authorities did expect an attack on the London Underground at some point. It is, after all, one of the most likely targets in Europe. There are certain points in the system that would wreak the most havoc. Those points were obvious to the authorities and to anyone who thought about bombing them. The authorities were, as one would expect, running frequent emergency planning exercises. One exercise coincided with an actual event. So from this monumentally trivial coincidence we are to conclude that the authorities were somehow "in on it"? And what exactly would be the point of coordinating these two events? If someone wanted to create bloody havoc on the London Underground, what useful purpose would be served by deliberately syncing it with a training exercise? This must be the weakest basis for a conspiracy theory in the history of conspiracy theories. --Lee Hunter 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, we are not drawing conclusions here, and these facts have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. One could note persistent consistency with regards to war games (exercises) and such acts as London bombings or 911 failures and call them monumentally trivial (did you know that global guardian actually speeded NORAD's response on 911? The switch from military exercise to real life took only about 30 seconds, that's why we had so few casualties and only hour and half of flying circus… burp), but we are not here to do that, we are here to provide facts; conclusions are left for our readers… Anyway, you've just wrote it yourself, these timelines and warnings are well known, they belong in the article, no need to paint any color on them (no need for drama, no need for conspiratorial etiquette)… just facts. Lovelight 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

{{mergeto}}

As to the {{mergeto}} tag in Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings and {{POV}} in this article, I suggest no merge takes place, and lack of conspiracy theories does not constitute POV. Any agreement, disagreement, opinions on removing the tags, ...? Weregerbil 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated earlier, there are no conspiracy theories there, just well cited warnings and exercises, neither of those constitutes conspiracy. We have appropriately named section here, merge is as natural as minding the gap… Lovelight 16:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories are just that - weaving ridiculous scenarios out of a big pile of coincidences. As usual. Training exercises of the type they read so much into are being carried out by so many public and private organisations that it would have been more remarkable if there hadn't been one taking place on 7 July. Nick Cooper 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your obvious personal POV about "conspiracy theories" doesn’t interest me… you don't even have a personal page? What exactly are you? Please restrain from calling me vandal, please restrain from labeling my action as malicious for they are not of such nature. You have no valid arguments; therefore you keep throwing conspiracy nonsense at me and other editors who tried to improve this editorial piece. You are the vandal, reverting external links without reason whatsoever? If you won't to remove the POV tag, discuss the proposed change… Lovelight 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That you seem so suspicious about my lack of a personal page probably says more about you than me, quite apart from the fact that yours is hardly informative. Your claim that anything I have reverted constituted an "improvement" of the article" is equally baffling.

That the links you seem so keen on adding are to sites dedicated to conspiracy theories is self-evident, suffering as they do from from the standard delusion of being unable to recognise coincidence for coincidence, and all to ready to accept at-the-time media speculation as fact and then weave bogus conclusions because it subsequently "contradicts" what is eventually reported when the dust settles. The preoccupation of both with just a single training exercise that happened to be in progress on the same day lacks the important context that - as I stated above - that sort of thing is happening somewhere in London pretty much every day of the year. The same applies to the pre-existing problems on various Underground lines earlier in the morning is far from unusual, which any person who actually lives and/or works in London knows (and I would hazard a guess that you are neither). If the links are worth including at all, then should be on the appropriate page, i.e. Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings. They certainly have no place on the main factual page about the event.

Your addition of the POV tag is clearly malicious, since you seem to be the only person who thinks it merits one. Nick Cooper 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the main problem is in terminology, why would you call that section about Simultaneous Exercise conspiratorial is beyond my grasp. I find that information well referenced and as interesting as closely related to the events of that day. I'm not the one who said: "… based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning…"; I'm just saying that such information belongs here, not there. This problem (of neglecting important facts) needs to be solved in every article linked to war on terrorism… It would certainly be far easier if you would use some other argument besides your conspiratorial barrage.., if you took a look at my talk page you've seen that I don't tolerate such labeling. Once again, this is not about drawing conclusions, this is not about coincidences nor conspiracies; this is about facts related to the article in question. In some way, you are saying that we should ignore those facts because people could draw a wrong conclusion? I might easily give up on those externals, but this merge won't be dismissed in such way… Apart from that, I find your repeating comments about me being malicious to be rather malicious. -- Lovelight 04:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Simulatenous Exercise" section is inherently conspiratorial, as it lacks the very relevent context that such exercises are a daily event in a city the size of London, home as it is to most functions of the government and the offices of many major - and even minor - corporations. As I said previously, it would have been more remarkable had there not been such an exercise taking place that day. The pages you are so keen to link to similarly attempt to draw a direct link between the exercise and the real events of the day to a degree of selective use of evidence and wild speculation that cannot be described as anything but a "conspiracy theory." Likewise, both sites rely on presenting contemporary speculation as "fact" and thus "contradicting" later revelations once actual investigations had taken place, e.g. initial reports of explosions due to power surges, the type of explosive used, etc. Nick Cooper 05:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why was another loop necessary, especially since I've stated that I'll easily give up on those links? Why do you keep insisting on this conspiracy talk? Please, simply cite your claim that such exercises are exercised on daily bases. You are free to add any"missing context" to that section. However, fact remains that interview is notable, and it should be presented right here, definitely not there. If you feel that section needs a fix, fix it, don't dismiss it… Lovelight 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is a sheer coincidence "notable"? It's ironic that you demand a cite, when the page you cite in the process relies on the classic conspiracy theorist's error of wrapping up a lie in a few threads of truth, by trying to present the 7/7 exercise - which essentially involved a few crisis managers in a room - as "unusual" by comparing it to high-profile major exercises carried out by UK and governments, but in a manner intended to present this as a startling revelation that the latter took place. The reality, is that 2005's Atlantic Blue was reported on almost two years before it took place [1], while the preceeding major exercise in 2003 was widely covered at the time [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The same applies to the supposedly "similar" Panorama programme. If there is any connection, it's far more plausible that the terrorists took inspiration from such high-profile and very public exercises/speculations, rather than some bizarre variation of the reverse.

As to the prevalence of smaller scale "paper" exercises, companies like Visor rarely publicise who their customers are, but considering there are dozens of firms in London that will undertake similar crisis management training (and who presumably would also take their cue from high-profile official exercises like those mentioned above), they don't need many clients each to bring the overall total into the hundreds. Nick Cooper 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, nothing to cite there… perhaps those exercises are not really carried out on daily basis (as you stated before), and they do not occur as often as you wish them to occur. You see, I'm not talking about notability of… coincidence (talking about irony there)? I'm talking about notability of that interview. Lovelight 10:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Which interview? The fact is, there are hundreds of crisis management companies in London. Baron Stevens, ex. Met Police Comissioners is part of one himself (www.quest.co.uk - they worked on the recent football transfers investigation). RHB 12:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean which interview? It's been cited here and there and everywhere… Well, whatever-however, no need for further discussion, Weregerbil blasted me with his valid and well explained arguments… there is simply no way to defend from you conspiracy nuts, is there;)… I sincerely hope you boys are aware that you are conspirators, worst of the kin you are… I'm off to celebrations, see you next year, have a good and happy one… New Year that is. -- Lovelight 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Amongst the scores of talking heads wheeled out to comment by the media, both on the day and subsequently, no it's not particularly notable at all, and it isn't made so just because the conspiracy theorists are busy weaving whole webs around what Power did or didn't say (e.g. claiming a "contradiction" between his reference to working with "a company of a thousand people" and the later clarification that the exercise only physically involved a few crisis managers in a room). As RHB has confirmed, there are numerous companies carrying out this sort of training in London, so by the law of averages it's not surprising that such an exercise was taking place on the day. Even if you consider just the National Health Service, every single one of the 70+ separate organisations in the capital [7] certainly do. Nick Cooper 14:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Doctored photo

Should there be a mention of the supposed doctored photo of the four bombers on here?

prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/250705doctored.html

For any who don't know what I'm on about, strange.

UncleTheOne 8 feb.

It's clearly complete nonsense. The man's left arm is bent up - you can see the curve of his elbow just above the lower railing, while what is below it is the bottom of the wall/corner behind. As to the "railing going through head," it's clearly a result of the usual distortion you get with low-quality video images, which in part "tricks" the eye. Nick Cooper 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Standard Mainstream Media Propaganda

Oh... so it's not relevant to mention on the top of the page that.. 1. Of 200+ subway stations in London, only 3 had a "Bomb Drill" that morning. The 3 that had bomb detonations. WHAT are the odds??? 2. Or that the bus (31) that went to Tavistock was not supposed to go there at all. Or be escorted by 2 black cars. 3. Or that witnesses said the bombs, both on the bus and in the subway came from below the floor, and not from some dark-skinned guy's backpack. 4. Or that the former Israeli Prime Minister was forewarned of the attacks by the Israelis. 5. Or that the circumstances around the "4 suicide bombers" were highly strange, to say the least. You go to blow yourself up, but you make sure to buy a roundtrip ticket and pay for your car's parking etc. 6. Or... well, I could write 20 more points, but as long as I only have "Conspiracy Theory" websites as references... (the only websites, of course, that dare document these things. = if you write about a conspiracy, whether real or imagined, you are a hopeless Conspiracy Kook and it doesn't matter how much proof you can offer for your findings.) I'm really not surprised to see that Wikipedia is 100% on the side of Big Brother. The al-Qaeda page is really, really laughable. It doesn't even mentioned how Bin Laden was USA's "best boy" for years and the Bin Laden family's ties to the Bushes. Books have been written about this...but, I guess in Wikipedia's "objective" opinion, that's only kooky Conspiracy Theory. ("Don't bother me with the facts when I've already made up my mind.) Ciao! BJ

Except, this is all complete nonsense, unsourced and ridiculous QuiteUnusual 17:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's complete bollocks. Sometimes a cigar really is a cigar, and a conspiracy kook really is a conspiracy kook... -- Arwel (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, three stations categorically did not have a "bomb drill" that morning. London Underground tend not to do practice exercises of any sort on weekdays, and certainly not at the height of the morning commuter rush. Nick Cooper 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

deletion April 12th

Nick Cooper deleted:

It is not clear when or where the bomber boarded the bus, and the police have appealed for witnesses. However, surviving passenger Daniel Obachike was not interviewed by police until 6 months after the bombing, and has since come forth with his own account of events.{ {fact}}

I found this contradiction about witnesses remarkable, so I am copying it to this talk page in case anyone is interested in following up on this. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary made clear, "the police have appealed for witnesses," was added to the page on 13 July, 2005, i.e. six days after the bombings. Clearly it should have been either removed or the tense changed long ago, but it seems to have slipped past. There is no "contradiction" between an appeal six days after the event, and whatever Obachike claims he did or didn't do up to six months later. Nick Cooper 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

correction: the matter is not what Obachike did; the matter is him (claiming) not being questioned until 6 months after appointing the guilty one. I interpret this as a contradiction. Love, — Xiutwel (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's only a contradiction if Obachike's account of his dealings with the police is true. Nick Cooper 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)#

Problem with Introduction

The 7 July 2005 London bombings were a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts that hit London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. Okay for the first sentence this is pretty pathetic. "Bomb blasts" is an odd choice of words. The sentence and intro don't properly summarize the event the way they should. Using the 9/11 page as reference perhaps something like: The July 7th, 2005 London bombings were a series of terrorist suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on London's public transport system. I don't know. I just found this page a little confusing. Imagine you had no prior knowledge to the 7/7 bombings and you search this page. You would have to read all the way down to the investigation to realize these were suicide bombings and the article only implies this was an Islamic extremist attack. Is there really any doubt they were suicide bombers? Come on this is common sense and backed by evidence. --Gordon geko 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, so it's OK for you to arbitrarily change a long-refined opening paragraph - trashing numerous internal links in the process - without waiting for a discussion, but not for anyone else to revert your hamfisted "editing" and request you do it properly? Your own edit history desmonstrates a remarkable lack of neutrality, in the light of which it seems impossible to assume good faith on your part. I am therefore reverting your changes until such time as common agreement deems them valid. Nick Cooper 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you changing it back to the original. But if you do so please explain why on the talk page. Personally I find it offensive that this page does not mention the most important facts over this event. Ask any journalist what the 7/7 bombings were and they will reply "a terrorist suicide attack by Islamic extremists". Who are you defending? This article is a disgrace to 52 people who died. Please tell me what you find so offensive about my changes.--Gordon geko 13:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Acetone peroxide

The article currently states:

It is believed that each of the four bombs consisted of four and a half kilograms (10 lb) of high explosives, reportedly home-made acetone peroxide.

And cites three sources:

• Bennetto, Jason (2005-07-14). "The Investigation: Bath filled with explosives found at 'operational base' of terrorists". The Independent. Retrieved 2006-12-03.
• Kirby, Terry (2005-07-14). "Tracing source of the explosives may reveal connection to al-Qa'ida". The Independent. Retrieved 2006-12-03.
• "Police hunt bomb team accomplices". BBC News. 2005-07-15. Retrieved 2006-12-03.

However, none of these sources actually state the bomb used acetone peroxide. Unless a source can be found, this claim should be removed. - Crosbiesmith 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Chapati flour + hydrogen peroxide mixture

Here

• "Four guilty over 21/7 bomb plot". BBC News. 2007-07-09.

BBC writes:

The [21/7] devices were made of chapati flour and a similar hydrogen peroxide mixture used by the men behind the 7 July attacks in which 52 people died.

Who knows more, please, add some relevant link to 7/7 explosives composition.

I see the Intelligence and Security Committee report describes them as 'organic peroxide-based devices'. I missed that, as I searched for 'acetone'. I have added this. - Crosbiesmith 19:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge Evening News section

I've removed this paragraph:

The suicide bombing theory came under some dispute with the eyewitness account of Bruce Lait ... This suggests at least one of the bombs may have been planted either on the track, or on the undercarriage.

It's taking one eyewitness statement, made three or four days after the event by someone who made vague remarks about what the blast damage looked like in their one passing glimpse of it, and drawing rather definite conclusions which don't appear to have been dealt with elsewhere. I'm really not convinced we should have it, and we certainly shouldn't be giving it this kind of weight. Shimgray | talk | 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shimgray. Im am an explosive engineer and most peoples knowledge of explosives, explosions and the physical results is obtained from TV and Hollywood. High order detonation in a confined space is quite a complex subject in which there are infinite variables, such as the yield of the main charge, the method of detonation, the distance and weight of surrounding baffles (that is a rather impersonal term for "people") the wave of detonation (that means the route from the detonator to the main charge and the channels in which the resultant gasses are dissapated) and other variables such as the material of which the train was made of, what is beneath the floor of the train etc.

Some bloke that sees something without knowledge of what he thinks he can see is hardly proof of a conspiracy. I know nothing about pathology, but i would accept that my initial perception about how somone died from an idle observation may differ from that of a trained pathologist. DETCORD 16 Aug 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.224.216 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction (revisited)

It is generally accepted that this was a co-ordinated terrorist suicide bombing, by British Muslims who were inspired by Al Quaeda philosophy and tactics. The introduction says nothing about this. Can we not add a paragraph to the intro stating "A lengthy police investigation has concluded that ..." followed by a summary along the lines of the above? This leaves other possibilities open, but presents key information for understanding the article. TrulyBlue 08:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Introduction should be changed to reflect the controversy that persists.

7/7 Bombings

1. The introduction should mention that controversy persists concerning these attacks such as: ‘The events of 7 July 2005 remain controversial.’

2. The statement that “four radical Islamic suicide bombers” are responsible has not been proved and should be removed.

N.Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 November 2007

No-one has proved that they didn't do it either. As they had made videos saying that this was their intent, and the fact that Gill Hicks saw Jermaine Lindsey detonate his bomb which removed her legs the balance of probability seems that they are responsible. Thats even before we delve into what was discovered in their houses and the abandoned car. DETCORD 16 Aug 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.224.216 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alteration to the following line

^{The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700, and caused disruption of the city's transport system (severely for the first day) and the country's mobile telecommunications infrastructure.}

How do we know 52 people were commuters - and what is the relevance ?

The sentence reads that the bombings killed 52 while(and) the bombers injured 700.

Were they 'Radical Muslims" or Islamists - there is a large difference ! And how do we know if they were either ?

As stated further into the article, the evidence (well cited) suggests that the bombers were expecting to survive and return. Is it not therefore emotional and out with good faith belief to refer to the in the opening paragraph as radical Islamic suicide bombers.

As for the telecom disruption - the infrastructure was not affected, this would suggest physical damage to the system. A busy range of cells would be expected around such an incident(s). Notwithstanding that the use of ACCOLC and GTPS would almost certainly be a legal requirement in the circumstances. This whole subject however is irrelevant to the article.

May i politely request discussion on changing the above to a much simpler, less emotive and more factually accurate :

" ^{The bombings, by four individual bombers; killed 52 people, injured 700, and caused major disruption to the city's transport system.} Dlm4473 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To deal with your points in order:

1) The vast majority were commuters, although "passengers" would be a suitable alternative.

2) It doesn't read that, because of the comma between "bombs" and "injured".

3) "Islamist" would be more appropriate, although may be disputed by some editors.

4) That is merely an interpretation of certain facts. Others suggest otherwise.

5) Disruption was caused in general by the system being overloaded, coupled with a limited geographical shutdown. As both were a result of the bombing, it most certainly is relevant.

6) You suggest a non-standard use of a semi-colon that is likely to lead to far more confusion than you claim currently exists.

Nick Cooper (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for apparently offending your sensibilities! I was merely attempting to help you make your article more legible (as i claim!) to its readers - as this paragraph had confused myself. I also apologise for my confusion over what this discussion page is supposed to be for! - Silly me! No wonder wikipedia has such a bad reputation!

FYI this is the definition of Infrastructure: 

(^{1) The fundamental structure of a system or organization. The basic, fundamental architecture of any system (electronic, mechanical, social, political, etc.) determines how it functions and how flexible it is to meet future requirements.} Dlm4473 (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You arogant moron !

Dlm4473 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bothered. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

7 July or July 7?

Should the article title not be July 7 rather than 7 July? The former is the British version, and as this is a British article it would make sense to have it this way. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gah, ignore me. I must be half asleep... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Motivation

For this article not to describe the apparent motivation for the attacks in its introduction is a bit odd. To simply say that it was caused by Islamic Extremists is misleading and potentially damaging. The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 is not only understood by most Britons to be the cause of the London Bombings, there is also a considerable amount of evidence to point to such a motivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.206.163 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion is not encyclopedic fact. If the article needs to say what "most Britons" understand, then it should be labled as such. If there really is "considerable evidence" about the motivation of the bombers (rather than belief and speculation), lets include it. Surely there must be a reliable source that says what their motivation was. (I exclude George Galloway and Tony Blair.) Rjm at sleepers (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you might want to exclude links to the elected MP George Galloway (even when published by the worlds most recognised and respected news provider, the British Broadcasting Company, and elected by thousands of London voters), as he has become a figure of fun and ridicule in the right-wing press. But you seem averse to those other links that point to the true motivation for the suicide bombing. You need to explain why you think those other citations are not reliable, don't just remove them and speculate. 82.10.206.163 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove the citations because the sources were unreliable; I removed them because they did not support the text of the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the 21/7 bombers spoke about his motivation in the Observer. Whilst I accept he was not one of the 7/7 bombers, I think he gives a good insight into their mindset: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/31/july7.uksecurity5

The Chatham House report, published in July 2005, also provides possible motivation for a terrorist threat based on UK involvement in the war on Iraq: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2005/07/18/Chathamreport.pdf

Both are reliable and pertinent – should they be included as citations?

Failed search (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to distinguish between the general statement that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism in the UK and the specific statement that the Iraq war was the motivation of the 7 July bombers. I believe the former can be well sourced; it may well be that the latter can also be well sourced, but I haven't seen a suitable citation yet. As Failed search points out, the first link is about the motivation of the 21/7 bombers and is therefore not a source for the motivation of the 7/7 bombers. I couldn't find anything specific in the second link (although it is quite lengthy so I may have missed something). The closest I could find is - "(t)he atttacks on the transport system in London on 7 July 2005 represent precisely the nature of the threat from international terrorism that the UK authorities have been concerned about since 9/11", which doesn't actualy say anything about the motivation of the 7/7 bombers or about the Iraq war. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of citations

I have removed several citations that were supposed to support the statement that the 7/7 bombingings were motivated by the invasion of Iraq. One reference was simply an opinion poll. Another was an alleged leak of a draft document. Another was about causes of young Britons’ turning to terrorism rather than specifically the 7/7 bombings. Another was a statement by George Galloway that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. I was unable to check whether the remaining citation supported the text. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a further citation, the most relevant section of which (IMO) reads “Some individuals who support the insurgency are known to have travelled to Iraq in order to fight against coalition forces. It is possible that they may return to the UK and consider mounting attacks here.” This does not support an assertion about the motivation of the bombers. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing these citations, they have all been relevant and requested by others. Just to quote back at you: "Contributing to the agency’s official website after the July 7 bombings, under the heading “Threat to the UK from international terrorism”, a team of MI5 analysts concludes: “Though they have a range of aspirations and ‘causes’, Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.”" 82.10.206.163 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the citations do not support the text. If the text said that the invasion of Iraq was an issue then the citation would be fine. The text is specific about the motivation of the bombers and the citations I removed simply did not support this text. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure we are reading the same links. "After the suicide bombings in London, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said there was no connection between them and the war in Iraq. This conflicted with a leaked assessment by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, based at MI5 and run by a Ministry of Defence official, which claimed, three weeks before July 7 that Iraq was continuing to act “as a focus of a range of terroristrelated activities in Britain”." 82.10.206.163 (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how an intelligence claim three weeks before the bombings can be used to support statements about the bombers motivations. But in any case, Iraq being "a focus of a range of terrorist related activities" says nothing whatsoever about their motivations. That particular article could be used in support of an assertion that the bombings were unrelated to the war in Iraq which is what Jack Straw is quoted as saying. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it illustrates the motivation, albeit before or after the event. BTW Jack Straw also claims(ed?) Iraq had WMD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.206.163 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Might the following be a good solution:

"The 7 July 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated bomb blasts, planned by British citizens who are believed to be Islamist extremists motivated by the 2003 invasion of Iraq[1], which hit London's public transport system during the morning rush hour."

82.10.206.163 (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How about

"The 7 July 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated bomb blasts, planned by British citizens who are believed to be Islamist extremists which hit London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. Intelligence analysts had previously warned of a link between the Iraq war and increased terrorism in Britain[1]."

Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are getting there. The evidence for the Iraq connection is almost overwhelming, I therefore don’t like the way an impression of Islam as the driving motivation is presented – in reality it appears to be only part of the answer.

"The 7 July 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings) were a series of coordinated bomb blasts that hit London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. Carried out by British extremists, the suicide bombings are believed to be largely motivated by the 2003 invasion of Iraq [1][2][3].

The last 2 links I refer to are:

2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/31/july7.uksecurity5 3: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2005/07/18/Chathamreport.pdf Failed search (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't state it as a fact unless you can find a source backing that it was definitely motivated by Iraq. The first cite on your list above says "if the reports turn out to be true." and the second only implies a causal effect on the UK not a relation to the bombing. --PTR (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that the bombings are connected to the Iraq War is not a fact? I have to agree, but it is probably as close to being a fact as is possible without talking to the bombers themselves. That is why I have proposed phrasing the introduction as above with the "are believed to be" inserted...? Failed search (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is not a fact, I'm saying we don't have a source asserting it as a fact or asserting it as the only motivation. All the refs say it "could be one of the motivations" or are unsubstantiated reports. Remember WP does not deal in "truth" only verifiability. --PTR (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the citations I removed was about an opinion poll, so the article could say "Two-thirds of Britons believe there is a link between Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq and the London bombings." Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case it is verifiable that most Britons believe it to be motivation by the Iraq war, and that there is evidence to support this assertion. So the above sentence would make sense for WP? I am not sure that we need to know in the introduction the exact proportion of Britons that think this - further down in the text maybe - or merely cited next to text? Failed search (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP generally doesn't use polls or opinions (since polls and opinions can change so often) but only reliable sources. Whatever you would expect to find in a written encyclopedia. I'm sure there's a good source out there that says the Iraq was was a possible contributing factor or even that it was the direct cause. Make sure that the cites are reliable sources (not blogs or primary sources) and that they are not unconfirmed reports, summarize them down in the text; representing exactly what the source says. It can then be summarized in the lead since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the text. --PTR (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What you have in the article is much better but this one source would be better than the ones you have now. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article548788.ece Also, this needs to be included in the body of the article so the lead is just a summary of the entire article. Include the other refs in the body and include more detail of who believes and why they believe it to be the motivation. --PTR (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input PTR, I have now added a subsection about the bombers motivation. If you find it lacking please feel free to add more.... Failed search (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted an unbiased link for the 7/7 bombings and naturally came here. But I was very disappointed by some of the wording in the "motivation" paragraph. It was written as though factual, that these people were motivated by the Iraq war and other conflicts. In my humble opinion, but I would not dream of placing that here, such wars were used as an excuse for terrorist attacks. There is, reputedly, a widely proclaimed, (even by Islamists themselves), and long-standing aim of Islamists to force their beliefs on the rest of us, Muslims or not.

Thus today, in my first exercise at Wikipedia, I have altered that phrase from:

"Carried out by British Islamist extremists, the suicide bombings were motivated by Britain's involvement in the Iraq War and other conflicts.[1]"

To:

"Carried out by British Islamist extremists, the suicide bombings were said by some to have been motivated by Britain's involvement in the Iraq War and other conflicts.[1]"

I hope others will agree that this alteration proves neither one argument or the other but adds to the breadth of the debate. We will never know, perhaps, what exactly is in the minds of terrorists. They may say one thing, while believing another. Nomayhem (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Nomayhem.

The bomber's have stated their motivation on video (cited in the article - please see above discussion) and should not be denied. If you have evidence of other motivations, or maybe that they lied about their true reasoning, the text should of course change, but until then the introduction must reflect these facts - I will therefore revert to the agreed text. Failed search (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hypnosadist removed a link to a Youtube recording of a BBC Live Five interview with Peter Power of Visor Consultants, in which he refers to a an exercise similar to what actually happened. This have never been refuted. Unless Hypnosadist can produce evidence to the contrary, I believe it should remain. emacsuser (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(rv as youtube is not a reliable source),

Actually it has been "refuted" through clarification that it was an office-based paper exercise, and there were fundamental differences in the scenario used (e.g. one Undeground station and one mainline station). Nick Cooper (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable citation for 'office-based paper exercise' ..

POWER:...at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning

emacsuser (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link not due to the content but the fact that youtube is not an RS by wikipedia standards, in this case this is shown by violating the BBC's copyright, as well as the standard reasons such as lack of verifability. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It maybe well be a copyright violation on behalf of Youtube but not Wikipedia. While it may be true that its veracity has not been verified. Neither the BBC or the gentleman who's words are clearly articulated in the audio recording, have refuted the claims made therein. As such it is most relevent in the 'Initial reports' section. emacsuser (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Emacsuser: DUring the Radio5 interview, Power said:

"And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met..."

A later generic response from Visor Consultants stated:

"It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.

However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.

In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events." (my emphasis added) [8]

It would actually be be more pertinent to ask what evidence there is - beyond leaping to conclusions based on Power's sloppy English - that what Visor Consultants were doing was 'not an "office-based paper exercise". A quick look at the website makes it clear the sort of training they provide:

http://www.visorconsultants.com/crisismanagementexercises.htm

http://www.visorconsultants.com/riskmanagementworkshops.htm

http://www.business-continuity-london.co.uk/businesscontinuitytraining .htm

Nick Cooper (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not leaping to any conclusions here, an exercise based on a similar scenario did take place on the morning of July the seventh, and as such should be referred to in the article. emacsuser (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And a television programme based on a similar premise (three bombs on the Undeground, one in a surface vehicle) was transmitted more than a year earlier. A programme which Peter Power also appeared in. In actual fact, the events of 7/7 were actually closer to the Panorama programme than they were to the Power/Visor exercise. Logically, either it's just a coincidence, or the bombers took a certain degree of inspiration from the programme. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

I don't think there's any real reason for Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings to exist separately from this article. The topic of "casualties of the 7 July 2007 London bombings" does not seem to be individually notable, and the amount of content to be merged would not lengthen this article by any substantial amount (especially after pruning).

It's worth noting that the "Casualties" article underwent an AfD discussion, which ended with a consensus to merge and redirect. That action was reverted (without an edit summary and with no discussion that I can find) by an IP account. Though I'm tempted to simply convert the page into a redirect once more, enough time has passed and enough edits have been made to the page that I think having a discussion might be more appropriate.

Thoughts? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

1)Redirect it and 2) add a warning to the IP account in question -that level 1. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the article. In addition to your comment, the merge notice has been on this and the "Casualties" page for well over three weaks. I don't think that warning the IP account is necessary, as the account has made no edits since 2006. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags on victims' names

An anonymous IP has added these, but I have a feeling that many of them will be purely arbitrary, based in some cases reported ethnicity, which may bear no relation to actual nationality. What do other editors think? Nick Cooper (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Should only be there if sourced, most likely easier to find for non-british citizens. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Victim

One of the victims of the bombings is said to be a survivor of Pan Am Flight 103.

But no-one survived that crash! Up and over for a six! (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say she was on the plane, but says she is Scottish, and mentions the wreckage landing on Lockerbie. It's not rocket science! Nick Cooper (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk for merged section

see Talk:Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings Melchoir 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

someone should protect the july 7 bombings page to view source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.161.218 (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspects

As far as I know, the police have only ever referred to the 4 as suspects. There is no proof that they were the bombers, and there has never been any trial to (posthumously) convict them.

Therefore I inserted "alleged" or "suspected" before every reference to them, but someone has removed them.

Is it known that those 4 guys actually were the bombers? Where is the actual proof?

simon

• There is a lot of proof available in the public domain, check out the BBC website and you can watch through the eyes of the cctv camera's around the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/investigation/html/introduction.stm. But post-mortem trials are not used in british law as far as i know,so they have not been tried and found guilty in a court.Hypnosadist 22:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous verifiable references that call these 4 "bombers". Therefore it can be used as a term. Tyrenius 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely the videos left by Khan and Tanweer are indications of intention. The videos therefore are immediately relevant to the questions of martydom and culpability.

____________

Having watched the "7/7 Ripple Effect" video on YouTube, I feel that the term "alleged" is most certainly justified. It is quite possible that the four suspects were patsies performing what they had been told was a drill and that the two videotaped "confessions" were part of the scenario they had been asked to perform. It wouldn't be the first time that governments engaged in false flag operations. Oclupak (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

First ever carried out

They were also the first suicide bombings ever carried out anywhere in Western Europe.

Not sure it is true. It is hard to prove and not sourced. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourced. In any case tradition european terroists never really went in for sucide bombing.Geni 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First suicide attack was in Spain!!! 95.16.127.131 (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They were not suicide bombers (i.e. they did not die during the attack). The died (killed themselves) when the Spanish police arrived at their hideaway. This is documented in the article here. Madrid bombings#Suicide of suspects leaky_caldron (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New section on motivation

The substantive text of this new section seems to me to be balanced and accurate. I personally don't like the style of the introductory paragraph to this new section which seems (to me) to be unencyclopedic. I might offer an alternative at some point.

The intro has improved, but I still think there is a problem with it and it does not appear to me to be a good summary of the text. I will do a bit of background reading and suggest some changes, but not urgently. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with the word motivation. There are sources that suggest the motivation of suicide bombers is to reach paradise [9]. I think we can reasonably say that the Iraq war was one of the events that led to the London bombing. Similarly we can talk about a link between the Iraq war and the bombings. We can say that the war was discussed by the bombers. But I still haven't seen a source that allows us to say anything about what motivated the bombers themselves. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq and Afghan wars are the headline reasons given by those who claim responsibility (although authenticity can't be verified) – also alluded to by the bombers themselves in their videos. To use another suicide bomber from a different part of the world fighting for very different reasons as an example of what motivated those that attacked London is ridicules. Maybe we should draw parallels with the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WWII? I have conceded that we can never know 100% for sure that it was for their Muslims brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan that motivated these men, but it is the best educated guess possible based on the available evidence. As for your example of the Israeli martyr, I would also hazard a guess that it might be because of the Palestinian genocide that really motivates them, with the assurance of a heavenly destination as a comfort blanket - but that is for another place... Failed search (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very confused. The 'motivation' section says 'we can only guess at' the bombers' motivations, but doesn't quote Khan himself in the videotape, in which he clearly states "Our drive and motivation" to be "obedience to the one true God", and "the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people", or Tanweer's comments about Afghanistan and Iraq. Why are Khan's and Tanweer's explanations not quoted? Am I missing something? The Drama Llama (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have good references and quotes, think it will add to the understanding and wish to add to the section, please, feel free, I just started it off. I'm sure there is far more out there that could be added... Failed search (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reorganised the section headings a little bit, and think it is now closer to what you might have been suggesting? Failed search (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I've reorganized it again. The whole "motivation" section looked like it was written before the release of the videotapes with people saying 'maybe it was about Iraq but we'll never be sure'. The tapes make it clearer. The Drama Llama (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats much clearer. Maybe the Introduction should be updated to reflect this? - removing references [1] & [2], are they really required at all now? Failed search (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, done. The Drama Llama (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to start an argument on this, but I remember hearing random news reports about jihadists planning a Holy War in the UK as far back as the 1980's. It was only after the bombing itself that critics of the War on Terror were saying this wouldn't have happened if we hadn't gone into Iraq. So while it may've been a partial excuse, I reject the notion that it's the sole motive. On another topic, I'm sick of these asshole conspiracy freaks vandalizing this article, and others like it. Wikipedia banned Scientology edit wars, we should ban these idiots too. ----DanTD (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to state the obvious, but this is a factual article based on more than what someone is said to have heard in a random news source...! The bombers stated their reasoning and motivations for the bombings - it was the Iraq war. Failed search (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Failed search, how familiar are you with organizations like Al-Muhajiroun? Would you mind checking to see when they were formed, and when they arrived in the UK? ----DanTD (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then it should not be a problom to find a source to back up the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)It does not mater when Muslimk terrorism arrived in the UK (this by the way was their first attack on UK soil). What matters is what the bombers have to say for themselves. Now if they claim its about Iraq thyen that is what they claim. All that needs to be done is find a souorce for that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's referred to in the article, this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Videotaped_statements Failed search (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Undicussed merge (Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings)

Without any prior discussion, NuclearWarfare has merged the former Rumours and conspiracy theories page into this main article. This seems an incredibly retrogressive step, not least because with the recent (this week) BBC Conspiracy Files programme, we now have a reputable source for much of the material that overzealous editors have removed in the last few months. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The BBC documentary is only one source, not a body of reliable sources; it furthermore does not render previously unreliable sources about rumours reliable, and goes no further in validating any rumours. Some rumours simply become more notable because the BBC mentioned them. Wikipedia should not be used for the promotion of conspiracy theories, and my impression having recently been looking at these pages and their histories, is that it has been. The article was a content fork with the aim of granting face validity to certain rumours.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If this was a separate article which has now been deleted and copied over I think a bit of prior discussion here first would have been courteous. I have no issue with it here but I have a concern about it's prominence within the article. It should have it's own section later in the overall article rather than as a sub-section under the investigation. The rumours section has nothing to do with the official investigation and is therefore non-sequitur in it's current location. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the case that the separate article was created precisely to avoid given the subject undue prominance on the page for the event as a whole. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, you're missing the point. In the past the problem was documenting that such theories actually exist as theories, not to "promote" them. In many cases the only "proof" that they existed were the blogs, forums, etc. that are promoting them, but which normal Wikipedia rules preclude us from using. This is the inherent dilemma that inadvertently creates a vacuum which not only prevents us from addressing/disputing such theories, but even looks as if we are pretending they do not even exist. This clearly plays into the hands of conspiracists. The fantasy about the supposed complex and wide-ranging "mock terror drills" on the same day is a case in point. It is central to many conspiracists' claims about the events of the day, yet the last form of the Rumours page before it was moved did not even mention it. The BBC documentary, on the other hand, outlined the conspiracists claims, then demonstrated why they are false.

I'm really afraid that I don't quite follow the logic of what you seem to be suggesting about the BBC programme. You say that it, "does not render previously unreliable sources about rumours reliable, and goes no further in validating any rumours." You then go on to say that, "Wikipedia should not be used for the promotion of conspiracy theories," and apparently condemn the Rumours page for, "granting validity to certain rumours." The BBC programme presented a number of conspiracy theories about 7/7 with the express purpose of disputing them, not promoting them. Have you actually seen the programme, or are you merely assuming what was in it? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Would have been nice to be alerted of this, but yes, let me explain my reasoning. Wikipedia:FRINGE#Warranting mention in other articles clearly says that if only one major source has reported extensively on this conspiracy, and the rest of the sources are non-mainstream or unreliable, the conspiracy theory should be maintained within its parent article, and I took a bold step and merged the two articles. As for what Leaky Cauldron said, I have no problem with making its own section within this article; I just felt that having it as separate spin-off article made it inherently non-neutral. (I am going to be gone for about the next 24 to 48 hours; could any discussion on splitting off the section please wait until then, just as a courtesy?) NW (Talk) 13:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cooper - I absolutely take your point about the difficulty of documenting these things according to Wikipedia rules, and so the BBC documentary is important in that respect. However, I think to call the move "incredibly retrogressive" is to both misunderstand and exaggerate what is at issue. There has been a well-organised campaign by a few people to spread something that is not true. These few people appear borderline delusional (believing themselves to be the son of God living close by the buried ark of the covenant) or barely reliable (a vicious holocaust denier who freely admits to being unable to consult the evidence). It is nothing like the 9/11 truth movement in the US. Does this really merit a separate article just because the BBC has one programme about them? Each allegation can be explained and refuted in a sentence or two if need be. That a minority of muslims do not believe the official account is notable, but there's not much to write about that beyond the figures. The importance of the topic is not defined by the shock value or the efforts of its disseminators per se.

What must not happen is that Wikipedia is used as a forum for exploring the truth of these conspiracies. Only when reliable sources start to question the official account can we report on that. Original research, in particular in the form of synthesis needs to be avoided. A separate article will only encourage that and give the topic undue weight in the process.

Actually, it's funny you ask me if I've seen it (thanks to the interwebs I can get it even in my far-flung location). Here's a Daily Mail journalist who clearly hasn't seen it despite giving the impression she has (all the questions she raises were answered in the documentary), showing how difficult getting reliable sources is with this kind of madness.

As for the move being without consultation. It's always better that there is some kind of warning, but what's done is done. This is an editor being bold but not without the backing of policy, and we're following the proper cycle of object and discuss on the talk page.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Incidents section

This should be the most informative and detailed section.

The attacks paragraphs are ok, but can anyone explain why we have "Initial Reports" and "Memorial event" in this section? Also, the Initial Reports section seems to major on a couple of exercises that had been scheduled on 7/7. Why are they so prominent?

1.1 Attacks on the Underground

1.2 Attack on a double-decker bus

1.3 Initial reports

1.4 Incidents of 21 July

1.5 Memorial event

leaky_caldron (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical comparisons

This is nothing more than an eclectic jumble of partly cited events. I would like to improve it by cutting away some of the irelevant content. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy

There are a number of issues here. Firstly only about half the sources for the "Major media question" section can be called major media that. he claim the the floor blew upwards is presented as a fact, but not all witneses agree with that claim. Whjat is the profile of a suicide bomber, is there a typical one?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The section was seriously guilty of non-WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. In particular the actual analysis of what is a typical suicide bomber is, is not something for a wikipedia editor to do themselves. They have to find reliable sources that make that analysis. I was bold and just deleted the section.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not one to want to give people like Nick Kollerstrom the oxygen of publicity, but it's probably worth finding some reliable press coverage about the conspiracy theories, I think the single line is too brief a mention. Fences&Windows 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A single line is reasonable. 9/11 conspiracy theories, despite being much more popular, get very little coverage in September 11 attacks. --Hut 8.5 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I expanded it to about three sentences, using mainstream sources, to give a taste of what the conspiracies entail. That should be sufficient. Fences&Windows 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this part of the line "which had been later edited to include remarks by al-Qaeda member Ayman al-Zawahiri," made it seem like it was implying a conspiracy. That's why I changed it before. ----DanTD (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed section

It was perhaps in response to the July 2005 bombings that more rumours began circulating that one can dial 112 as an emergency number on one's mobile phone, and the call would go through, even if there is no signal for the phone. This is not true; if the signal strength is not sufficient to make a call to 999, then it will not be sufficient to call 112 either. As of June 2007, Ofcom (UK Communications Regulator) was consulting with UK network operators to introduce the network roaming element of emergency call handling, although no timetable has been presented. However most networks will prioritise 999/112 calls over other traffic, (using the ACCOLC, the "access overload control scheme"), so even a fully-congested network should be able to connect an emergency call. I thought it had no relevance in this article. Fences&Windows 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure

This article could do with a bit of restructuring and some rewriting. I may try to tweak some of it over the next few days if there are no strong objections. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List

I propose removing the list of victims per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Having it unbalances the article, especially with the accompanying fruit salad of flags. It is unencyclopedic and adds nothing to our coverage. Thoughts? --John (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. No more proper than in the 9/11 article(s). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work. --John (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bombers

Have the alleged bombers been convicted? If not, the claims that they are the bombers must be removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead people aren't tried. If you have reason to doubt the claim that those four men carried out the bombings, can we see it? Otherwise, it is the mainstream consensus that they did conduct the bombings, and so we reflect this. Fences&Windows 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

deletion April 12th

Removed, camden beeing close to the bombings. Rusish , all on London therefore was close to the bombings.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.188.3 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

list of victims

I think there should be a permanent article with a list of victims names, nationalities etc

Arguments that it is an insignificant event compared with WW2 etc are disrespectful, especially seeing as there is a list of the Virginia Tech Massacre victims, was that event somehow more significant?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.7.41 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved speculative sentences here for lack of citation

No citations for the following lines had been provided after a year of being flagged as "citation needed":

The most likely suspects were said to be individuals who had been to the al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan prior to 2001. As many as 3,000 British born or based people are thought to have been trained in the camps and may since have trained others.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.224.204 (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From article

Moved here, because it didn't fit and I didn't know where to put it:

01 March 2006. BBC News 22:30 PM The Metropolitan Police admit that it was a mistake to shut down the mobile telephone networks in the immediate aftermath of the July 7th attacks. This directly contradicts statements by the mobile telephone network operators and the Police at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4763350.stm

"Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has criticised his City of London colleagues for shutting down the mobile phone network on 7 July"

æle ✆ 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

london bombing

hello, i would like know how this affected the travel and tourism industry ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.137.207 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

death count

the box on the side says 56 people died, the introductory text mentions 52 - this should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.33.170 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

52 + 4 bombers = 56. Fences&Windows 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbers killled

The existing text matches is similar to that used for 9/11 which is "2,973 victims and the 19 hijackers died as a result of the attacks". I would support a change to that form of words, but do not support the "were killed by the bombers" that SlaterStephen has sought to introduce. If the sourced number is 56 not 52 then change the number, that is a different issue. --Snowded ^TALK 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problom with changing it to 56, I just felt it better ti keep the text as unchanged as possible. Actualy it does not match the above text. It says that 52 people were killed, the line about the bombers is seperate and there is no indication that the figure 52 does not include them, unlike the text above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we change it to the above form. Its better than the current but avoids the "they killed them" words. If no objections I will make that change later --Snowded ^TALK 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Title

Is it a Wikipedia standard to represent dates in the format 1 January rather than for example January 1 or 1st January ? Springald 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a Wikipedia standard to follow relative local dating standards. This article refers to an event in the United Kingdom, so the UK format (dd/mm/yyyy) is used. The events of the eleventh day of September, 2001, in New York, are referred to in the US format (mm/dd/yyyy). Liam Plested 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that it is the local dating standard in the United Kingdom to represent dates as "1st January" rather than "1 January", which is considered an Americanism. I, having just searched for "7th July 2005" and found no results, would prefer this article to be titled "7th July ..." as opposed to "7 July ...". Any objections/reasons for it to be otherwise? Blindsuperhero (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How can "7 July" be an "Americanism," when the American version would be "July 7th"? In either case, the suffix is not now seen as obligatory. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be 7th July 80.2.18.139 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed - the UK usage is 7th July 2005, not 7 July 2005. Why is the page move-protected when there is consensus against the current title? Little Professor (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can and should the the article not change its name from 7 July 2005 to 7th of July 2005? Failed search (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Americans. And they don't even realise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.81.157 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a few years late, but read WP:DATE#Dates. Wikipedia never uses a "th" suffix on any dates, British or American, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy"

This was once covered by a lengthy and separate "alternative theories" page, but that page with all its (admittedly dubious) detail has been squashed into this article as a five-line generalised and dismissive paragraph. The current section imparts very little information, and there are no links out to any related material either. Those coming to this page to get such information are thus bereft of any leads at all for further reading. I have noted the above discussion section "No conspiracy drama please" that insists that there ought be no such links as "they are conspiracy theory sites and sprout the usual conspiracy nuttery". That is hardly NPOV!, and there may be may readers who are interested in discovering more about these "nutty theories" that, according to this very article, 24% of UK Muslims agree with, in the same way that there are no doubt those who want to know a bit more about, for example, "flat-earthers" (who do have their own article). As there is an aversion to having informative content within the article itself, I am going to provide a link out to a single, dedicated site (http://www.julyseventh.co.uk) that analyses many of these theories in detail (and, for what its worth, discards most of them: the focus of the site is on the unknowns and getting a public inquiry, rather than wild speculation), together with providing a huge quantity of media reaction and undisputed factual data from official sources. I'm also not too sure how to put this politely, so I apologise in advance: I don't expect the link to be removed, unless of course it is replaced with proper article content, without some proper reasoning ("conspiracy theories are nutty" or some variation thereof is simply not good enough), and will revert/dispute as necessary, as this seems to be yet another article (as per discussion above) with controversial aspects excised by an opinionated clique. 188.126.84.67 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the CT / inquiry paragraphs, and merged them to make their content flow better (they ought to be dealt with together: the perceived element of doubt in the official narrative fuels both the CT and the calls for an inquiry). I'm not entirely satisfied with the result (it is structured in such a way as to read slightly pro-CT), but it seems much improved. I have also included a link to the site I mentioned above (to my knowledge, it is the most balanced and detailed site that deals with the possibility of CT): I am not keen on the way I have included it in the body of the text, but am mindful that a link will have less prominence within a CT-only section than putting it with the other external links at the bottom of the article. Amendments and comment welcome :) 188.126.84.67 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Motivation in lead - where's Jihad, Islamism, etc?

I only see "objection to british involvement in war" in the lead. Nothing about Islam, Islamism, global Jihad or al Queda. Is PC being enforced where anybody that tries to make such a statement will be reverted, or would anybody object if I added it? Bachcell (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2012 Olympics?

shouldn't something be mensioned about the fact that just a day before the attacks, London had won the right to host the olympics? this event could be related to the attack, be it a wild thoery. --130.218.173.5 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While the French Secret Service have a long and inglorious history of blowing up things their government isn't keen on, I somehow doubt that they'd be involved. And I can't imagine that anyone would go to all the trouble that the alleged bombers did just on the off-chance that London actually won the Olympics. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You find the source we can put it in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability of secretive events

A concept that I ask Wikipedia NPOV-policy to adjust to.

I shall discuss how wikipedia deals with facts and events that are not in the interest of the reference-media. The prevailing opinion seems to be that there are enough alternatives so that an "inconvenient" fact still is expressed and explained and described en detail (i.e. reference-able), and hence references to those alternatives are plentiful and easy to find. It is not commonsensical to attribute total impartiality to corporate and state media. Likewise it is ludicrous to assume blogs etc to be impartial. But this is beside the point. The question at hand is the corporate-media unwillingness to talk about secret-service or security-related issues. Those issues that concern everyone the most. Established "big media" deems itself "responsible" and it is "careful" (censors) where "security" matters are concerned. The 2005 London bombings fall into a time of Blair and Bush Gleichschaltung of the BBC and other big media. While Gleichschaltung is too harsh a word, the effect is the same. Propaganda is a fact, so is Operation Mockingbird and the Mighty Wurlitzer. These abominations only effect big media, unlike the Gleichschaltung. The recent Wikileaks example is instructive, for Wikileaks offered the Pentagon veto of parts of the publication, which declined. Yet Wikileaks is still accused of endangering security. The public right to know is being upheld by pirates, essentially. secrecy is enormous and on the scale of stalinist societies. So much for big media and their reference-status. One has to take them with a grain of salt. Especially in case of security (terrorism) their omission is not an indication of less gravity, neither is their downplaying or focussing on selected information. I have repeatedly observed that the english Wikipedia has a overly negative attitude to "conspiracy theories", and is not ashamed to mix and match wording until -- even most reasonable -- conspiracy theories sound awful. The one exception is Gladio which I recommend to every wikipedia moderator who is concerned about comspiracy theories. Here the facts were so overwhelming that wikipedia has, in effect, accused most western secret services of mass murder. In the case at hand there are a considerable number of facts that "conspiracy theorists" have interpreted as proof. Many of these "facts" are more compelling than in the August 1980 Bologna bombing case (which has it's 30th anniversary today, but have a look how much you can read of it in the big media!), The London terrorist attack is on the same scale yet the treatment it receives is very different, only partly justifiably so. The part which I find unjustifiable is the wilful concealment of the following similarities of the various terror attacks: The political outcomes, the treatment by the press, the stonewalling of the people responsible, the fishy investigations and the final "all is now good" commission reports. These are so common to almost all such terror attacks that omitting work on a serious in-depth treatment -- at least on the conspiracy-theories-pages -- is negligent and certainly incompatible with a NPOV. That said. I still want you to insert the above short sentence in both the London 2005 Bombings and the Peter Power pages, simply to allow the thinking process that is started by a wikileaks-like openness. Like Wikileaks publishes the actual war-crimes evidence (unverified, like youtube) the words that Mr.Power actually spoke need to be referenced. Instead, busybody Snowed deleted the simple one-line-fact (repeatedly) and now has replaced it with words that do not match the original in clarity. He referenced an obviously partisan article in BBC4 (that bristles with innuendo) and now does not truly inform the wikipedia reader. I have now added the transscript of the TV and Radio Interview, for clarity.) -- PLEASE ADJUST WIKIPEDIA NPOV POLICY REFLECTING ON THE PROBLEM ABOVE. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is not the place to change wikipedia policy. You need to do that elsewhere. As far as this article is concerned we work from reliable sources, no matter what our personal opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 16:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your above post is not an "essay" as you described it, it is a WP:RANT, there is a big difference. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, could you please speak to the content, not the form. Do you understand my point? 2nd question: If Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) is not the right forum to discuss this, which forum is? Many thanks 85.197.19.228 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the right place to change policy, your problem was taking a content issue onone page not a general principle. That said I very much doubt you will make an progress with the idea - it goes against some of the core principles of Wikipedia. I also agree with BW (and that doesn't often happen), the post above was a rant, it will get you no where fast--Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The movie Hereafter

Just saw the 2011 movie Hereafter, and it contains a scene of the bombing in Charing Cross tube station (probably fictionalised). Wondering if this is worth placing into the article under a heading, "media" or "portrayal in media" perhaps? Wolcott (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem there is that none of the bombed trains were on lines that go through Charing Cross in any direction, it is therefore impossible for anyone to get on a train at that station taht would heve been involved in the bombings. Is it actually explicitly stated in the film that the scene in question is on 7 July 2005? If so, it's a major factual error to have the station as Charing Cross. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a fictionalised version then as I thought, I guess they were refused permission to film at King's Cross St. Pancras tube station. The date in the film is not stated, but it does mention "coordinated attacks". While the scene is only brief, it's IMO a key part of the movie. In case those heavily involved in this article decide to add a heading for media, there are docudramas of the bombings as well, produced by the BBC I think. Thought I'd mention this movie as a headstart. Wolcott (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)