Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please add new comments at the bottom of the page or click here.
- I have added Talk:2005 London bombing/MissingInfo for people to list bits that have been lost in the course of ongoing edits so they can be added back later if required. SimonLyall 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Talk for merged section
see Talk:Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings Melchoir 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Minor Question
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
- "Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has criticised his City of London colleagues for shutting down the mobile phone network on 7 July"
[edit] 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?
- 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.
[edit] 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.
- 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: 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] PROTEST:
Some very important FACTS about the 7/7 London bombings are left out and place on a page called: "rumours and conspiracy theories" while the main page contain the rumour (which is the official story) that this was an al-Qeada like attack, which is non-factual and contrary to evidenc that it was an act of state-terrorism
Note 1: Wiki pages covering a subject should first of all be based on facts. I see there fore no reason (for the merit of being factual) of leaving out very important information which proves that, amongst others:
- The bombings occured at exactly the same time and location as a previously planned counter-terror drill occured.
This fact alone, which is well documented and of which video footage exists, already shows a very imortant fact, leading to the conclusion that this was not an 'authentic' terrorist attack, but must be planned by government secret agencies. Very much like Gladio performed several of such bombings and terrorist attacks in the 80-ies (Bologna, for instance).
Note 2: By placing such important facts and not distinguish REAL rumours from FACTS and also by using the term "conspiracy" (as if the official story is NOT a conspiracy!!!) is a biased way (showing POV by the way, and therefore inclining Wiki's own policy!!) of covering this bombing event!
There is sufficient PROOF that the 7/7 London bombing was an act of STATE TERRORISM! The current page with the (wrong/biased) title : "rumours and conspiracy theories about July 7 London bombings" contains (apart from some also mentioned but not yet established facts and/or rumours on that page, which could stay as long and in sofar as they are not factual) a series of documented facts about the drills, the behaviour of the 'terrorists' which do not match suicide bombers, and the established fact that the train tables (as in the official story) can't be right (are physical impossible).
The RUMOUR (that is: government and media lies) is that this was an al-Qeada alike attack, nd this should of course be distinguished from the ESTABLISHED FACTS!
I PROPOSE therefore that the REAL facts are placed on this page, which are the ESTABLISHED FACTS which show that it was an act of STATE TERRORISM, and that the government/media rumours and lies, are translocated to a seperate page, listed as: "goverment/media rumours and lies about the 7/7 London bombings".
As a remark to this: I think it's very strange that such biased opinions on this subject keep appearing here on Wiki, that government lies and media lies keep appearing and that the world community does not correct them. That is, the real story and facts do appear, but in such a way that it is hidden and is made to be ridiculed and not treated as very serious and also factual information!! It's a shame for Wikipedia, which was intended to refrain from such government and media lies, and show the real facts which can be known and should be known by the public.
This subject is highly important! The repeating of government lies and media lies, should be stopped, and Wikipedia should re-establish the REAL facts, which can be controlled by the mass population, it is one of the weapons we still have to beat these LIES!!!!
We should be aware of such things, and keep Wikipedia standards up, and not lowering it because of the repeated propaganda from media and government stories!
Heusdens 04:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, what is on the "Rumours" page is the usual mish-mash of lies, distortions, halt-truths and a smattering of misleadingly-cited actual truths that conspiracy theories are invariably composed of. The fact that these theories exist and are circulated merits their documentation, but that does not - and should not - imbue them with any legitimacy.
- The often claimed "evidence" that there was a "similar" anti-terror exercise or exercises in progress at the same time or just before the attacks, for example, overlooks the fact that dozens of such exercises take place every week. And of course it should not be a surprise if the planners of those exercises envisage similar or the same sort of attacks that would occur to potential terrorists. Nick Cooper 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Heusdens, a little bit of info for you. Prison Planet is run by an american white supremasist, post 9/11 his sad "theories" have become popular with muslims and moonbats alike. Please go away and stop bothering editors unless you have real information from decent sources.Hypnosadist 11:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, no wonder the world is in such a mess, with apologists like that trying to excuse the bombers. If you have verifiable, independent evidence ot your allegations then provide it instead of keep claiming you have it it, oh and not just evidence from lunatic conspiracy sites!
-
-
- Hypnosadist (what a choice of username!) FYI this is a DISCUSSION page, not the editorial page. There are credible sources that might be of interest. Please check this video documentary: Ludicrious Diversion and this video documentary Mind the Gap Heusdens 09:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, discussion of the established FACTS which should - or should not - be included in the article, not wild conspiracy theories woven out of lies, misinterpretations and coincidences, all of which can be rebutted with rational analysis of what really happened. Nick Cooper 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Categories: B-Class rail transport articles | Mid-importance rail transport articles | WikiProject Rapid transit | B-Class Rapid transit articles | Unknown-importance rapid transit articles | WikiProject Underground articles | B-Class Underground articles | Mid-importance Underground articles | To do | To do, priority 2 | Articles referenced by the press