Talk:London bombers may have been 'duped' into committing suicide

Or, maybe they didn't do it !

Is there any evidence that these men knew each other? Have there been any interviews with their families about why they might have been carrying back packs? where are the photos of them with these sacks...I think I've seen maybe 1. Paulrevere2005 22:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

IS it a Frame Up????

The question must be addressed by anyone who wants to make sure the real killers are brought to justice. The history of frame-ups by government cabals is not a "conspiracy theory"..it's just plain history. e.g. [[1]]... that ruse cost the lives of 68,000 American servicemen..then there is [[2]] and [[3]]and the granddaddy(until now)[[4]], [[5]]. The point,in my opinion, is that the people,the voters, have to actually do some research and think about the story our governments put forth.

This wikipedia report may be an eyeopener for some about the willingness of some American leaders to kill and/or facilitate the killing of their own citizens for foreign policy objectives. [[6]]. If this type of person would kill Americans; then who's to say they wouldn't kill ______. Who has benefited the most from this crime????

If anybody other than the government were putting forth these theories about these 4 dead men; it would be labeled a conspiracy theory. So far the evidence against them is unknown or non-existent and their circumstances and profiles don't seem to fit...thus, the newest theory that they were "duped" and "clean skins". Maybe they are just plain INNOCENT ! Where's the evidence?????????

Now finally, and this will require some research in order to confirm or refute (unless one prefers to just resort to name-calling); powerful interests within the USA for the past 2 centuries have had clandestine foreign policies which included and embraced frame-ups and violent attacks upon civilians in order to move public opinion in a particular direction and or to obtain strategic positioning geographically [[7]]

For some inexplicable reason I read a book by Walter Russell Mead of the U.S. Council of Foreign Relations [[8]] titled "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World"[[9]] a book that showed how much of a mushroom I really am; a book which shows that not only do many western leaders know about and accept the war engineering and racial/religious/cultural hate engineering accomplished by frame-ups..they actually believe it is now America's Divine duty to conquer the world ("divine providence" and "manifest destiny") and that the end justifies the means. Which explains to me..finally.."why are american troops in Iraq,Kuwait,S Korea,Saudi Arabia,Cuba etc.etc.etc." It's not because the american people want them to be there; it's because the people like Kerry and Bush and Mead want them to be there.

WHY??? 1.In order to invade and take over territory(either directly or via puppet governments) you have to have a war 2.It takes 2 to make a war;you have to have an enemy. 3.Easiest way to make an enemy is to move next door(or even into the back yard) and have a bunch of weapons pointed at the potential enemy's kids; imo.

But, prove me wrong..read the book that Mead wrote; and see American history in a brand new light. Paulrevere2005 20:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Paulrevere2005. There is another London outside the USA, it is in Englandland, the little island to the north of Franceland. The bombs went off there... Nobody is suggesting that the bombers were innocent, they obviously intended to kill and maim many, and succeeded, but the increasing feeling is that the 'bombers' were 'Patsies', who only discovered that they were 'suicide bombers' for a few milliseconds after they pulled the 'Arming' switch before making their escape and using their return rail tickets to Luton and home. The importance of this is in the future mindset of people who may be tempted to join them in 'paradise'. Impressionable people who may be tempted to die for the greater glory of Al-Quieda may think differently when they realise that the original London bombers were used as low-class 'mugs' and effectively murdered by the same Al-Quieda. Please don't take me as some sort of apologist...if I were in charge, the bombers (had they survived) would have been promptly stood-up against the nearest wall at Paddington Green Police Station and machine-gunned...but we need to wait and see, and avoid wild US-style conspiracy theories for the time being. ChrisR (Nr.London, UK)

First three words

Can we really trust something from a tabloid?

It would be good to have other user's input on this. Shoud WN run a story like this, which is mainly speculation from a tabloid newspaper, or should we stick to 'real news' (Reporting just the facts)? Phunt87 (Talk) 06:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Normally I'd say no, but the BBC have been discussing this theory heavily today. Normally I always say "don't speculate, stick to the facts", but this is so interesting... let's make an exception - just once - for this. Dan100 (Talk) 14:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dan100, also bear in mind that British tabloids are not the 'comics for grown ups' that American friends might associate with the name. As a political prankster myself I have been looking at the news reports and wondering if these patsies even knew they were carrying lethal devices - four smoke bombs would have brought the tube to a halt and made a great, although stupid, prank at the opening of the G8... Moloch65 Australia

Using quotes in headlines

If you are going to use words like 'duped' *in quotes* then the article better immediately cite that quote. This is journalism 101 people.