This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
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)
"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
For your convienence, let me name just two VERIFYALBLE FACTS which proof me right:
see: www.prisonplanet.com/video/london_terror_games.wmv WMV of London Terror Games]
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)
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)
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)
WikiPedia Timelapse Added on March 18 -- 172.208.158.213 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
Nick Cooper deleted:
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)
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)
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)
The article currently states:
And cites three sources:
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)
Here
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've removed this paragraph:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Might the following be a good solution:
82.10.206.163 ( talk) 14:08, 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 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)
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)
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),
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
Not sure it is true. It is hard to prove and not sourced. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
leaky_caldron ( talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2] 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. [3] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. citation needed 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. citation needed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.224.204 ( talk) 07:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved here, because it didn't fit and I didn't know where to put it:
æle ✆ 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 [4]. 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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
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)
"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
For your convienence, let me name just two VERIFYALBLE FACTS which proof me right:
see: www.prisonplanet.com/video/london_terror_games.wmv WMV of London Terror Games]
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)
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)
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)
WikiPedia Timelapse Added on March 18 -- 172.208.158.213 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
Nick Cooper deleted:
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)
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)
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)
The article currently states:
And cites three sources:
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)
Here
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've removed this paragraph:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Might the following be a good solution:
82.10.206.163 ( talk) 14:08, 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 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)
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)
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),
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
Not sure it is true. It is hard to prove and not sourced. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
leaky_caldron ( talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2] 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. [3] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. citation needed 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. citation needed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.224.204 ( talk) 07:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved here, because it didn't fit and I didn't know where to put it:
æle ✆ 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 [4]. 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)
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)