Posted on 07/14/2005 1:52:23 AM PDT by Brit_Guy
"On Wednesday, several American law enforcement officials identified one of the suspected suicide bombers as a Jamaican-born British resident named Lindsey Germaine. The other suspected bombers were of Pakistani descent and lived in the gritty working-class neighborhoods of Leeds. [Page A13.] "
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"England is a great country and we love it to bits but do we love this government? No," Mr. Qazi said. "There were 24 Muslims killed in Iraq today; there will be more tonight and more tomorrow."
Yeah. And who killed them?
"This quote was typical:"
Which is why I only printed an except and not the whole article! The rest of it was rubbish - what is really interesting though is the idea that the un-named man (in Britain) may turn out to be Jamaican. That would suggest that it wasn't the work of a very closely knit circle of freinds from a small town or particular local mosque - but some kind of wider conspiracy. (I think we would have all guessed that anyway but it is fascinating watching the evidence drip through).
When the Brits run out of appeasement options for their Muslim immigrants, what do they do when Muslims announce that the Koran forbids 'royalty' and that the queen, et al. have to go?
They'll become stuffed exhibits in The British Museum or the Ashmolean, amusements for the post-Christian beneficiaries of the cultural and moral relativism which opened the gates for the barbarians. Ironic?
Well, at least they have gun control, right?
There was another brief report about this - the West Indian was photographed in the company of the other four at a train station, and is thought to be the bombmaker (but not the mastermind).
does that mean that the DC shooters may have actually been AlQaeda???
IIRC, there was some suspicion that the older one (Muhammed?) was vaguely AQ affiliated, or had had some contact with them in the West Indies or in the Pacific Northwest, but that the shooting spree was basically his personal inspiration.
Well if it had turned out that turned out that the Oklahoma city bombers had Al Qaeda connections but carried it out due to personal inspirations... that would make the history books. So I am wondering if the caribean Al Qaeda connection in London and DC could have been part of a misdirection strategy for AQ all along. Padilla is kind of a special profile as well, not exactly qualifying a middle-eastern male between 21 and 45 that we would normally be looking for. Didn't we get intelligence that they would be using westerners or were seeking them, right after 9/11?
Oh, they're definitely using them, I just meant that the DC snipers were not necessarily under direct orders.
There has been a surge in Islamic violence in the Caribbean lately - bombings in Trinidad that have been attributed to them, for example. They obviously have a nest of West Indian recruits, not to mention the ones they pick up in jail in the US.
Thanks for that. Do you reckon sky news monitor free republic.... three hours after I posted the except above they have just run the story "we are investigating a report that the New York Times has named a jamaican". heh heh.... Speed up guys.
This dude needs to get real....it ain't nothing to be proud of to send a suicide bomber into a group of 10 year olds to and kill them excepting a piece of candy.
Don't you love FR...cutting edge.
Same background as Richard Reed (shoe bomber)?
Only three of the four bombers have been publicly identified. I think the reports have stated they were still working on the identity of the fourth, and it has been assumed (by authorities or by the press, I don't know which) that all 4 were British-born of Pakistani descent.
The tapes from the rail station show 4 bombers + one other (presumably the bomb maker). The bomb-maker has been described as being a British citizen from the Caribbean. Now we hear the fourth bomber may also be a British citizen, born in Jamaica.
It is possible the press has got some of this mixed up since the details on bomber #4 and the suspected bomb-maker are very similar.
What amazes me though is that the NYT names a name. I hope they have rock solid sources....... Even then it is clear that it was a tacical decision by UK law enforcement agencies NOT to name the man (presumably not wanting to tip him off that they knew it is him) - so where does the NYT get off in jumping the gun and naming the name prematurely?
BBC Online is naming the 4th bomber as well.
"BBC Online is naming the 4th bomber as well."
Six hours after the NYT ran the story.... and after confirmation by the UK police.
As far as I can make out the NYT ran the name before the police had figured out if it was the fourth bomber or the fifth man who is now a fugitive. If it had been the fifth man the last thing you want to do is publically tip him off that the police are onto him. Stupid Media.
Yes. The best source of news and analysis on the Internet!
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.