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?"
SOme of them get it. Yesterday, in downtown Madrid (Spain), I saw a band of young Iraqi men waving a flag and protesting against - AL JAZEERA!!! Their flier said it gave a distorted view of their country and the good things that were happening there.
Earlier articles reported that the bombers had purchased and used an expensive industrial refrigerator, so that should be added to the cost.
This is funny, considering that he is an atheist. The words "godless" and "heathen" have probably never been uttered by him in any form whatsoever. One would think someone with such a patriotic background would have the sense to "pick up his own cross" and follow Him.
I almost lost my leg because I refrained from dropping a 40mm on some Muslims because there were children around, I guess that makes me an godless infidel.
Is the BBC calling them "bombings"???
That would be taking sides.
Shouldn't it be: "volatile substances that when mixed together become extremely unstable and likely to set off a release of protesting energy against the evil warmonger Bush, that could cause serious or even fatal injury to people nearby."
Do you put the value of your own life at zero just because there are things you value more than your life?
And yes, you are equating homicidal jihad maniacs with those who defend freedom, and that is disgusting.
No, you can keep insisting that in your own ignorance, but all I pointed out was that they value their cause more than their life (whereas you said they value their lives at zero), and that isn't something unique to 'homicidal jihad maniacs'.
No, not believing in the same (one, true, whatever) god is what makes them think you are a godless infidel. Not blowing up kids makes you a good guy in my book, but doesn't have anything to do with how religious kooks view you for not sharing their take on divinity.
You seem to be justifying the actions of a few maniacs biased on religion, Now I do think that islam is a fake religion possibly the work of the devil himself but that is not relevant to this thread.
But let's say that I was living in a craphole and my children were starving and Muslim troops (That did not rape, and pillage or try to force their religion into law ) restored order and were providing humanitarian aid with no strings attached except you can't try and kill them. I most certainly would not fight them I would help them which is what the majority of Iraqis are doing.
The only ones who veiw us as godless heathens are the heathens hiding behind religion to explain their diabolical acts.
We don't tell them that that cant be Muslim
We don't oppress any of them or curtail their civil liberties hell an Iraqi Citizen has better firearms rights than I do as a US Citizen
There simply is no religious justification for the actions of those who are killing their fellow Muslims and trying to kill US service members. If we were destroying their holy books like the do to ours in Islamic countries, If we were forcing them to convert religions like they do once they are in power, If we rounding them up as slaves like the do in islamic countries than your argument might hold some merit.
Have a nice day.
Soooo, how many welfare checks did it take? [drumming fingers]
Is that spoken in the California vernacular :)
It took me a while to catch on when I was there but I got it.
Sure there is. Their 'fellow Muslims' are traitors, and we are infidels. Both are legitimate to kill under Islam. We don't need to do anything other than refuse to submit to Islamic authority to deserve death. That's not hyperbole, that's simply how their system is designed. That harsh standard is not unique to Islam, but it is a defining characteristic of tyranny.
Ironically, Islam is 'slavery to God'. For instance, the name Abdullah, one of the most common Arabic names, literally translates to 'Slave of God'. Freedom is seen as a corrupting influence, because people often choose vice instead of virtue, which is detrimental to their souls. Freedom, by definition, is anti-Islamic.
The proprer Islamic battle cry should be "Give me slavery, or give me death!" Think about it. From their warped point of view, they're the good guys, trying to be loyal to God, and we're the agents of Satan.
While I totally disagree, I will say that they absolutely think that they are the moral ones, and our cry for freedom is a demand for sin. It's easy to dismiss them as crazy or irrational, but it's a lot more complicated than that.
While I totally disagree, I will say that they absolutely think that they are the moral ones, and our cry for freedom is a demand for sin. It's easy to dismiss them as crazy or irrational, but it's a lot more complicated than that.
Well put. I tried to explain they have committment to a cause not dissimiliar to the committment Americans or anyone else have to different causes. People keep trying to conflate that into an equation of causes instead of the level of commitment.
Do you put the value of your own life at zero just because there are things you value more than your life?
I wasn't sure if you were ducking the question, or just missed it.
"Have a nice day" is a polite way of saying "you are a stupid and sick piece of $#!+ and I wish to have nothing further to do with you."
Have a nice day.
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
Do you put the value of your own life at zero just because there are things you value more than your life?
I wasn't sure if you were ducking the question, or just missed it.
Have a nice day.
Do you put the value of your own life at zero just because there are things you value more than your life?
Now it's obvious you're ducking the question, and the only reason is because your ego is too fragile to admit a mistake, even in this relatively anonymous forum. Instead you turn insulting and abusive. Your character is what you make it, I hope in the future you can do better.
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.