No doubt.

Just out of curiosity, though...why was he so 'anxious'? Shouldn't he be looking forward to those dozens of doe-eyed rasins for slaughtering the infidels and striking cold fear into their cowardly hearts?

How can racial profiling be avoided under these circumstances?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

My first thought, on seeing both the hesitation in calling them suicide bombers and the "agitated" quote, was that maybe the bombers were "assisted" suicides, who thought, e.g., they were just planting bombs that would detonate at 0910, only to discover suddently that they were actually holding bombs set to detonate at 0900?

Ace, wild-ass conjecture here on my part, but perhaps one reason why the police are skeptical is they may not be certain the bombers *knew* they were suicide bombers.

If earlier reports about the bombs using timers are true, why would a suicide bomber need a bomb with a timer? Although it does help with synchronization, and thus spreading chaos, it's not a very flexible tactic. Gee, really hate to miss that train and waste a perfectly good suicide bombing.

Of course, if these guys *were* duped into blowing themselves up, one would think the news would get back to the rest of their cel pretty quick, and make the non-suicidal jihadi bombers nervous. "Uh, Ali? I'm gonna pass on dropping off that bomb of yours."

For me, the real mystery is that fourth bombing-- why so late? Did that bomb also rely on a timer, or was it detonated manually? Was the bus his target? Or was that jihadi late to the party, and decided to blow up the bus because the police had shut down the Tube? Or did he have another target in mind? Or, again, was he simply not expecting the bomb to go off just then?

I'm not saying I believe that theory-- I don't (too many variables, Occam's Razor says their suicide bombers. Still, this wouldn't be the first time smarter terrorists have tricked dumber ones into doing their dirty work (just see the 9/11 hijackers for an example-- only the pilots are believed to have known they were on one-way trips).

So, in the end, this may be a theory the British authorities have to work through to disprove, hence their reluctance to come out and say "suicide bomber."

BTW, your larger point RE: "bombs don't kill people, suicide bombers kill people" remains true as ever.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Dammit David C., if only I wrote less and wrote faster to make the same point.

"Of course, if these guys *were* duped into blowing themselves up, one would think the news would get back to the rest of their cel pretty quick, and make the non-suicidal jihadi bombers nervous."

One possibility is that these guys *were* the entire cell (save for the leader - "Solidarity, Reg!"), in which case it wouldn't matter. Or that they're the only guys in the cell that didn't know, and the rest were knowingly exploiting them (these vermin do have a history of exploiting mentally retarded "operatives", for instance.)

Well, such a result works wonders for opsec-- decapitated jihadi heads don't tell tales.

I weep for the door jambs that are going to be assaulted throughout London as the Bobbies bash their way into the flats and houses of suspects.

I weep that the civil liberties enjoyed by the citizenry for over a thousand years, give or take eight or nine hundred, will be trampled by the actions of a handful of people who, apparently, didn't know how to read a clock.

I am rendered heartsick at the notion that the gob-smacking vileness of the villian's act will be met with actual gob smacking of unshaven men by agents of the Queen and gob smacking in the literal sense is, by any definition, torture.

Heartsick am I.

TIme to go pour a pint.

Dave,David,

Does anyone remember reading a while ago that on 9/11, only a couple of them (the leaders) knew what was goiung to happen on the places? I recall reading that they basically turned up at the airport, bought tickets and then they were told what was going down (i.e. Them).

I'm not sure that as many muslims in the west are real eager for Martyrdom as they like to pretend. If the 9/11 article was correct, combined with 'suicide bombers' carrying bombs with timers, it seems like they are having to dupe people into being martyrs. I'm sure there are plenty that like to talk tough about martyrdom, but when push comes to shove, someone has to force them into it.

It's not easy to talk smack a lot and then at the airport, when you find out what they have planned for you, turn around saying you can't make todays jihad operation, you have the plumber coming this afternoon.

Ring, in my post I alluded to that point about the 9/11 hijackers-- not everyone knew what the plan was.

In fact, my understanding was that it was even worse than you wrote-- the hijackers knew they were hijacking planes, but they were surprised *onboard* the planes. Possibly even surprised as they crashed into the buildings.

I think that's definitely true, Ring. I think suicide bombers often have "handlers" to make sure they go through with it.

And the 9/11 guys, yeah, the way I remember it, most of them thought they were basically signing on for a "traditional" hijacking operation of some sort. (Land the plane somewhere, threaten to kill hostages unless demands are met, etc.)

There's definitely a more limited supply of martyrs than propagandists (MSM and otherwise) would want you to think. Another example is Zarqawi in Iraq, who is by some accounts basically reduced to running a "jihad army" of mental defectives (themselves often "voluntold" into martyrdom by their relatives - lovely culture the Saudis have....)

Does anyone remember reading a while ago that on 9/11, only a couple of them (the leaders) knew what was goiung to happen on the places?

They're all dead. How would anyone know what they thought? And frankly, if they weren't told, the fact that Atta took them out for free lap dances the night before, should have been a clue.

If the london terrorists thought they were only transporting the bombs, how does that make profiling any less necessary?

If I see someone swarthy acting hinky get on public transportation, whether man, woman, or child, I'm getting off.

Let's not forget all the "volunteers" in Iraq who have to be chained and wired into their suicide cars, in order to ensure they carry out their attack.

I wouldn't be surprised if the bomb maker "assisted" the bombers by setting one time for detonation, and telling the martyrs another time.

You know that's poor tactics. You're sacrificing assets for shock value, when the actual bombing is more than shocking enough. In doing that you're gambling that your enemies will give in before you run out of "volunteers". With some of our political leaders I can see them finding that a viable strategy, but not everyone is going to cave.

Another example is Zarqawi in Iraq, who is by some accounts basically reduced to running a "jihad army" of mental defectives (themselves often "voluntold" into martyrdom by their relatives - lovely culture the Saudis have....)

Or, you have your best friend seduce your wife. Then you and he shame her into becoming a suicide bomber, leaving a couple of small children without a mother and a whole bunch of innocents dead.

"You know that's poor tactics. You're sacrificing assets for shock value, when the actual bombing is more than shocking enough."

Actually, I think the (still extremely hypothetical, of course) scenario would be pretty good tactics. Good opsec, as noted above, since corpses don't talk. And the other key bit, I think, is that the bombers *would* be found.

If you have a modern, first-world police department with unlimited resources, there's really no such thing as an "unsolvable" crime. Of course, lots of crimes still go unsolved, because resources *aren't* unlimited. But in a case like this, they essentially are.

Thinking like a bad guy cell leader, I'd probably conclude that my assets wouldn't have any value after the job, and quite possibly a lot of "negative" value (they'll get caught and talk, and/or I've gotta try to protect them or get them out of the country, etc.)

David C : If you have a modern, first-world police department with unlimited resources, there's really no such thing as an "unsolvable" crime.

Nonsense.

All the investigatory resources in the world won't solve a well-carried out crime where there is no repeatablilty by the perp. Example: Who killed Chandra Levy? Likely a homeboy thug that saw her jogging alone in a DC park and just did a crime of opportunity. All the cops in the world won't solve that crime - they came up with nothing despite it being media-prominent and all police resources available dedicated to it. Or a simple crime like theft where there is no traceability of the goods stolen and no witnesses.

Sigh.

Likely a homeboy thug