Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Although the bombers may have been British, I do not believe that they were knowingly "suicide bombers". My intuitive feeling is that they were given the bombs to plant believing that they were to leave the trains before the explosions happened, i.e. the "Edgware Road Bomber",Mohammed Sadique Khan, would have believed that he was to plant the rucksack containing the bomb by placing it on the floor of the carriage and slowly shuffle away from it towards the door of the train and alight at say Paddington leaving the unexploded bomb behind to go off at some point west of Paddington. He and the others were deceived into carrying bombs set to go off much earlier than they were told, thus turning them into both tools and victims of a higher level of the organization for whom they were operating. In short they were murdered by the people they were working for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats an interesting theory - the Police have described the CCTV images of the 4 men at Kings Cross station arriving in London that morning - they were apparently just chatting in a fairly relaxed manner. Also - one of these men was a 19 yr old, whilst another was a primary school teacher - of whom pictures of him helping a girl in class have been realeased. Pictures of these men released have not even shown any sign of Islamic clothing or adages. The fourth man was a Jaimaican....though it doesn't say whether he was a convert (BBC is my source for all this). That does raise the question whether they were plants like you say, and in the Jamaicans case - whether he was just a bounty bomber...

The police have said they believe there is a man behind it all, but they can't find him/or wont tell us - we are told to expect further attacks from this source.

Edited by Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although the bombers may have been British, I do not believe that they were knowingly "suicide bombers". My intuitive feeling is that they were given the bombs to plant believing that they were to leave the trains before the explosions happened [...]

[bold added for emphasis.]

I do not understand the epistemology of this conclusion. You hold a belief, and it is a result of an "intuitive feeling"? How does your approach differ from mysticism?

Would it not be a better procedure to start with facts of reality and logically infer conclusions, all within the context of objective knowledge?

For anyone interested in the Objectivist idea of "mysticism," see: "Mysticism," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, and Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 160-161 and 182-185.

Edited by BurgessLau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although the bombers may have been British, I do not believe that they were knowingly "suicide bombers". My intuitive feeling is that they were given the bombs to plant believing that they were to leave the trains before the explosions happened, i.e. the "Edgware Road Bomber",Mohammed Sadique Khan, would have believed that he was to plant the rucksack containing the bomb by placing it on the floor of the carriage and slowly shuffle away from it towards the door of the train and alight at say Paddington leaving the unexploded bomb behind to go off at some point west of Paddington. He and the others were deceived into carrying bombs set to go off much earlier than they were told, thus turning them into both tools and victims of  a higher level of the organization for whom they were operating. In short they were murdered by the people they were working for.

I wouldn't say I have intuitive knowledge, but I would explore the possibility that this is the case. In Israel its common practice among terrorist organizations to have delivery boys or unwitting accomplices to deliver “packages” that are set to explode during delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say I have intuitive knowledge, but I would explore the possibility that this is the case.
In this case, I don't see why you would (I suppose it depends on what you mean by "explore"). There is enough factual evidence to indicate that this was intentional suicide bombing. If some compelling fact were presented to you to refute all of the existing contrary evidence, that fact should speak for itself; but it would not be rational to dedicate any resources to pursuing a remote improbability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How predictable are the departure and arrival times of the trains in the tube? Is it possible to know in advance that three particular trains will be packed and between stations at precisely 8:53 a.m.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this case, I don't see why you would (I suppose it depends on what you mean by "explore"). There is enough factual evidence to indicate that this was intentional suicide bombing. If some compelling fact were presented to you to refute all of the existing contrary evidence, that fact should speak for itself; but it would not be rational to dedicate any resources to pursuing a remote improbability.

By explore I meant that its a possibility because its a common tactic used by Islamic terrorist. Using historical trend analysis I wouldn't discredit the possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not understand the epistemology of this conclusion. You hold a belief, and it is a result of an "intuitive feeling"? How does your approach differ from mysticism?

Would it not be a better procedure to start with facts of reality and logically infer conclusions, all within the context of objective knowledge?

------

Thank you for the questions:

"facts of reality and logic" and "objective knowledge" run on a totally different track to my "intuition". "intuition" becomes mysticism when the "intuitive feeling" is analyzed and attributed to an "outside source" i.e. "I got a message from my granny who died ten years ago". Also mysticism implies “mystery”, “something from beyond”, “from the other side”. I avoid this approach at all costs and trust my "intuition" without any logical analysis at all. This makes it difficult for many people to except my intuitive feelings but I can't worry about that and no, I don't have to put my intuition to any tests of reality or logic in order for it to be validated. It is accepted my whoever wants to accept it and rejected by people that feel so inclined to do so. I may get a point across to some people and I know I will not get across to others.

"Would it not be a better procedure to start with facts of reality and logically infer conclusions, all within the context of objective knowledge? " No it would not be "better", it is simply a different way of coming to a conclusion..

One is based on "trust" and the other on "proof". We know that these two words are not interchangable.

This may make a good topic in it's own right but I don't want to cause a thread drift here. The topic here is "Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism".

send me an email if you wish. [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How predictable are the departure and arrival times of the trains in the tube?  Is it possible to know in advance that three particular trains will be packed and between stations at precisely 8:53 a.m.?

At 8:53 a.m. I promise you all tube trains in London will be packed.

The exact place of the trains (between stations at precisely 8:53 a.m.?) at this time is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At 8:53 a.m. I promise you all tube trains in London will be packed.

The exact place of the trains (between stations at precisely 8:53 a.m.?) at this time is irrelevant.

It seems to me that the placement of the trains at a precise time is quite relevant to your theory. If, for instance, the trains had been at a station at 8:52 with the bomb set to go off at 8:53, the bomber/delivery boys may have escaped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say they believed they had an at least ten to fifteen minute time span between leaving the train at say Paddington or beyond and the bomb going off much further down the line. One minute as you propose would be too much of a risk because minor delays can always (and do) happen on the underground.

I'm sure that trains spend more time traveling between stations than stopping at stations so the odds were in favor of the bomb going off between stations as a matter of course. Even if the bomb went off at say Edgware Road station and no a few yards beyond it as happened then the bomber would have still been killed because he would have planned to get off at at least the next station, Paddington.

Also there is the question of why would a suicide bomber be needed in any case on a train ? Where we have seen suicide bombers in Sri Lanka, Israel and more recently in Iraq, the bomber tried to get as close to a specific, stationary target, i.e. a shopping mall, at a political rally as near as possibly to and VIP targets or an Iraqi police recruiting center. An underground train is very obviously not a stationary target at all. The target actually comes to the bomber ! All he has to do is get on, plant the bomb, get off and the bomb is already on target and there is nothing to gain by having the bomber on board which is why I say they were all murdered.

By writing this reply I have indeed used "facts of reality and logically inferred conclusions," to support my claim but I still say it is based in the first instance on my intuition.

Eddie Punch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning,

It is Sunday Morning, 11:23 am, European Time

The London "Met", the Metropolitian Police, has just announced that they no longer believe that the bombers were suicide bombers. They are now saying that the bombers had "no wish to die" and that they were murdered. I heard this on the radio news at 11:00 local time.

Apart from posting here I have been bombarding British Newspapers with my original post. Last night I got through to the Ant Terrorist Branch of the "Met" myself. They listened and said "We can not deal with ESP reports but thank you for calling" but this morning they seem to have changed their tune.

My original post here was on the 14th, that's Thursday. Maby, maby, I've helped the "Met" to get closer to solving this one. I hope so.

BurgessLau: What do you say to this ? It would interest me very much to hear what you have to say.

Eddie Punch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All he has to do is get on, plant the bomb, get off and the bomb is already on target and there is nothing to gain by having the bomber on board which is why I say they were all murdered.

Fooling terrorist foot-soldiers into a suicide bombing has a number of "advantages":

- They are less likely to cancel their mission last-minute.

- They can't be caught and questioned.

- They don't leave suspicious bags or rucksacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fooling terrorist foot-soldiers into a suicide bombing has a number of "advantages":

- They are less likely to cancel their mission last-minute.

- They can't be caught and questioned.

- They don't leave suspicious bags or rucksacks.

But it also has a number of problems:

1) It is bound to hurt recruitment for future missions.

2) There is still a greater likelihood of a bomber surviving and being available for questioning. And if one survives and realizes he was duped, he may be quite motivated to talk.

3) The duped bombers must believe that they can, in fact, leave "suspicious bags or rucksacks" behind while they make their escape. Furthermore, they must surely be aware that CCTV cameras will lead to the discovery of their identity, as it has in this case. So how did the organizer of this attack convince them they could avoid detection and arrest?

The "duped bombers" theory has another problem: how do you account for the actions of the fourth bomber?

Why did he go into the tube with the other 3 unless he intended to bomb a train as well? Police are theorizing that his target was a train that wasn't running that morning due to technical problems. Why didn't his bomb explode at the same time as the others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BurgessLau: What do you say to this ? It would interest me very much to hear what you have to say.

Eddie Punch

I don't know what Burgess has to say, but given this statement that you made earlier:

I avoid this approach at all costs and trust my "intuition" without any logical analysis at all. This makes it difficult for many people to except my intuitive feelings but I can't worry about that and no, I don't have to put my intuition to any tests of reality or logic in order for it to be validated. It is accepted my whoever wants to accept it and rejected by people that feel so inclined to do so.
Why would you expect anyone to attempt to reason with you in any fashion whatsoever? If your intuition is not to be subjected to any sort of "test of reality or logic", why would you care what we think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) It is bound to hurt recruitment for future missions.
Because of the deception or because of the death?

I don't know the psychology of potential or actual terrorists. Are many of them willing to die or not? I guess that - at least in part - depends on the culture in which they grew up. A person raised in Britain may be less susceptible to suicide missions than a person raised in Saudi Arabia.

What personally amazes me is the small frequency of terrorist attacks such as the ones in the UK and Spain. Are there too few people willing to carry out such attacks? Do they lack the know-how? Do they lack financial resources? Are the security measures too strict (police, intelligence)? Is the small frequency deliberately chosen?

2) There is still a greater likelihood of a bomber surviving and being available for questioning.  And if one survives and realizes he was duped, he may be quite motivated to talk.
True.

3) The duped bombers must believe that they can, in fact, leave "suspicious bags or rucksacks" behind while they make their escape.  Furthermore, they must surely be aware that CCTV cameras will lead to the discovery of their identity, as it has in this case.  So how did the organizer of this attack convince them they could avoid detection and arrest?
Maybe he doesn't need to convince them because they are willing to take that risk.

Why did he go into the tube with the other 3 unless he intended to bomb a train as well?  Police are theorizing that his target was a train that wasn't running that morning due to technical problems.  Why didn't his bomb explode at the same time as the others?
This is pure speculation: The bomb could have had an on/off switch but no visible countdown. Edited by Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here is some support for the duped bomber theory. This is from an article at News.com:

"Lending weight to the theory is the fact that all four men had paid up their parking tickets before boarding a train at Luton for King's Cross, and that they all bought return tickets to the capital.

Moreover, the paper said, the men were carrying their explosives inside rucksacks, as opposed to strapped to their bodies as is common practice among suicide bombers.

None were reported to have cried "Allah Akbar" (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge - something which most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do."

You can read the article HERE. (Requires free registration.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have trouble believing that they didn't know they would die. I mean, who would be responsible for tricking all 4 people into blowing up with their bombs? It doesn't make much sense that they could coordinate that.

As for paying tickets and buying full passes, it's done to deflect attention from the authorities. Fair or not, people take notice when Muslims buy one-way tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what Burgess has to say, but given this statement that you made earlier: 

Why would you expect anyone to attempt to reason with you in any fashion whatsoever?  If your intuition is not to be subjected to any sort of "test of reality or logic", why would you care what we think?

As long as we both arrive at the same end, i.e. concluding that the bombers were murdered, then each one can except the others way of thinking. I have no problem with "test of reality or logic" as a method of problem solving in it's own right. I'm just not worried about people think when they reject "intuition" because it does not conform to their logical methods and therefore must be deemed to be invalid.

Somehow the police in London have come to believe that it was not a "suicide mission" on Sunday the 17 July. The first time I saw "suicide bombing" on the BBC News Website my intuition told me "this is not right" and that was last Saturday the 9 July.

I have a history of ESP and am well aware of the pros and cons of the issues involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

[...] "facts of reality and logic" and "objective knowledge" run on a totally different track to my "intuition".

You have now shown you do not support Objectivism's central idea that reason is man's sole means of gaining knowledge. Are there other principles of Objectivism you reject -- or do you reject all of it?

"intuition" becomes mysticism when the "intuitive feeling" is analyzed and attributed to an "outside source" i.e. "I got a message from my granny who died ten years ago".
False. "Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational ... means of knowledge, such as ... 'intuition' ... or any form of 'just knowing'." (Ayn Rand, "Mysticism" article in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, an excerpt from "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosophy: Who Needs , p. 75 (hb), 62 (pb). To others in this audience, I recommend Leonard Peikoff's discussions of intrinsicism (the epistemology of "I just know"), mysticism as an expression of intrinsicism, and intuitionism as a form of mysticism. See Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, index for numerous listings.

This may make a good topic in it's own right but I don't want to cause a thread drift here.

Questioning the objectivity of any assertion in a thread is always appropriate in the thread itself. I have questioned your "intuition" as a source of knowledge. You have revealed yourself to be anti-Objectivist, and in a fundamental way. Now I have a context in which to evaluate your "intuitive" claims -- which are thus arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the "War On Terror". This war needs to be fought in this nation and in other nations where sleepers cells await their orders to attack. I have no tolerance for religous tolerance which allows those who would kill to hide behind the cloak of religion. We must preserve our own safety by rooting out the home grown or imported threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism, do you mean Saudi people or the Saudi government?  I don't know about the people, but I find it unlikely that the government funds Islamic terrorism, given Al Qaeda's stated objective of overthrowing the Saudi royal family.

To Moose and All,

Have you read these two books, or am I just entering the discussion far too late?

Robert Baer. See No Evil.

Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil.

They deal with terrorism and the Saudi issue. I'd be interested in your reaction(s) to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...