Police think Mohammad Sidique Khan was the main backer
Posted on 01/02/2006 8:24:15 PM PST by DenverCossack
An investigation by the BBC World Service into the cost of the London bombings last July has revealed that they cost no more than several hundred pounds to carry out.
As soon as Scotland Yard established the identities of the four men responsible for the London bombings on 7 July, they began investigating the financing of the attacks.
Officers now believe that Mohammad Sidique Khan, who worked as a teaching assistant, was the principal backer of the attacks and that he gave money to the other men to buy some of the materials.
The attacks by four suicide bombers on three Tube trains and a bus killed 52 people and injured hundreds.
Detectives also discovered that the men had prepared for their own deaths - they paid off some of their debts and at least one bomber is understood to have written a will.
Further investigations allowed police to put a price on the cost of executing the attacks - no more than several hundred pounds.
Loretta Napoleoni, an economist and expert on terrorist financing, told Dirty Money on the BBC World Service that the figure was part of a pattern.
|
Police think Mohammad Sidique Khan was the main backer
|
"If you look at 9/11, which cost only $500,000 to execute, and then you look at all the subsequent attacks that have taken place - going from Bali to Istanbul to Madrid to London - we actually see that the cost of the attacks is decreasing exponentially."
Still, the figure now revealed for the cost of the London bombings is very low.
The Madrid bombings - another attack on the transport infrastructure of a major European city - are estimated to have cost $10,000, approximately 10 times the cost of the London bombings.
Within days of the attacks, Chancellor Gordon Brown went to Brussels for a meeting of EU finance ministers to urge them to cooperate more closely to stop the financing of terrorism.
But the fact that London was bombed for such a cheap figure - and that the money was raised legitimately - highlights the problems that the authorities have in tackling terrorist financing.
Douglas Greenburg, who studied the financing of attacks on New York and Washington as part of the 9/11 commission, told Dirty Money: "If you have someone who is working and depositing their pay cheques into the bank, and periodically withdrawing money and at night buying components for a bomb, constructing a bomb in their basement, what's the bank going to do about that?"
Especially when the Islamikazis put the value of their lives at zero.
In a real way, they actually cost billions to develop and build the technologies that were used.
We paid that bill.
Pistol rounds cost less than a fifty cents each.
True that. The same four terrorists could probably take out just as many people with a couple of AKs in a crowded spot.
I guess there's some sick bomb fetish.
"But the fact that London was bombed for such a cheap figure - and that the money was raised legitimately - highlights the problems that the authorities have in tackling terrorist financing."
Yep, that's a problem.
The NYPD officials said investigators believe the bombers used a peroxide-based explosive called HMDT, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. HMDT can be made using ordinary ingredients like hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach), citric acid (a common food preservative) and heat tablets (sometimes used by the military for cooking).
Supposedly they used cellphones to detonate them. A wristwatch with an alarm would have worked as well. You can't fight this sort of thing by concentrating on the hardware - you concentrate on the criminals.
Could you build them cheaper at Wal Mart or Home Depot? What if you built them in volume, could Cost Co or Sam's help?
Cost of 9-11 attack: $1T
Cost of each WTC building: $2B
Cost of 2B rounds of ammunition: $1B
Value of radical muslims soon to be exterminated: $0.00
Looks on the faces of radical muslims as they are exterminated: priceless
They value their cause more than their lives. Our take on it is, 'give me liberty or give me death!'
Would you commit your life to the cause of removing a foreign invader in your country? Or would you submit to occupation by what you considered a godless heathen?
Further correction: radical muslims = Ilsamo-pussies, deranged worshipers of the moon, a meteor, and a murdering pedophile.
Oh please, you are equating heros who would die to defend freedom, with homicidal islamic lunatics who believe that allah will reward them with an eternal virgin rape-fest as a reward for the mass murder of women and children?
ping
Bombs = NY Times coverage.
Yes, it is that simple.
No, I didn't equate them. I simply pointed out that they value their cause above their lives, and I pointed an example of that same sentiment (values extolled over an individual's life) in our culture. I'd like to know, would you submit to occupation by what you considered a godless heathen, or is that a cause worth risking your life for to you?
Yes, I would die to defend my family, my nation, etc.
And yes, you are equating homicidal jihad maniacs with those who defend freedom, and that is disgusting.
Funny I never see any pictures of the talibian or muzzies helping infidel children out. Give me a break I have risked my life to protect Muslim children and defend my constitution. Are you honestly trying to say that we are oppressors in Iraq? Tell me what have you risked you life for or would you.
Precisely.
Could not have said it better myself.
Keep cramming Muslims into your society, Great Britain. Sooner or later you will learn how much of a mistake it all was to "embrace diversity" with these cretins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.