Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings

Talk for merged section

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

From article

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

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

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

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

æle ✆ 2006-04-11t00:07z

Suspects

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

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

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

simon

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

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

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

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)

Dublin & Monaghan bombings

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

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

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

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

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)

06 / 07 / 2006 video

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

YouTube

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

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

Civilians

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

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

Home addresses of bombers

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

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

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

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

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

Other people investigated

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

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)

No conspiracy drama please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{mergeto}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctored photo

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

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

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

UncleTheOne 8 feb.

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

Standard Mainstream Media Propaganda

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

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

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

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

deletion April 12th

Nick Cooper deleted:

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

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

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

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

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

deletion April 12th

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

Problem with Introduction

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

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

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

Acetone peroxide

The article currently states:

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

And cites three sources:

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

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

Chapati flour + hydrogen peroxide mixture

Here

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

BBC writes:

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

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

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

Cambridge Evening News section

I've removed this paragraph:

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

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

list of victims

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

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

Introduction (revisited)

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

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

7/7 Bombings

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

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

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

Moved speculative sentences here for lack of citation

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

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

Alteration to the following line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To deal with your points in order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI this is the definition of Infrastructure: 

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

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

You arogant moron !

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

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

7 July or July 7?

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

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

Removal of citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Might the following be a good solution:

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

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

Motivation

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

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

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

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