Today's attacks: a warning? Bush/Oval/Warren, detonators only, AND...

[Brotherjohn]

... coming the day after Al Qaeda warned that European nations had until August 15th to pull out of Iraq... or else?

I'm sorry, but the station names are just too eerie to be coincidence: Shepherd's Bush, WARren Street, and Oval (as in Office). I'd venture to say Shepherd's Bush is the only station in the London area with "Bush" in the name.

Then there's the "detonators only" part of the attack (accdg to BBC earlier today). Why go through all the trouble without using actual explosives?

And, while a copycat attack is a possibility, it would take an awful lot of planning, I think, to duplicate the attacks of two weeks ago (3 train stations and a bus). I just don't know if a copycat would have had time.

I think it's a followup on yesterday's verbal warning. Al Qaeda is saying: we can do it again, we can do it the same way, we can do it however we want.

[FormerRepublican]

1. A Rove connection?

Maybe it's the secret guys Bush is getting to do this terrorist stuff that are saying 'order us to commit another terrorist attack and they'll be holding a Warren commission on what happens to you in the oval office.'

OK, my tinfoil is firmly in place ...

[Bumblebee]

2. I had exactly the same reaction

and actually wrote about it in an earlier thread. I do not think it's a coincidence. Too neat to be one.

[evermind]

3. I think the BBC are saying the devices failed to explode

and that unexploded material has been found.

In other words, the intention was to cause carnage on the same scale as the last attack.

London attackers 'meant to kill'

BBC security correspondent Mark Urban said initial indications were that the devices were put together in a way very similar to those used two weeks ago.

He said there were suggestions that the rucksacks themselves, as well as the choice of three tube trains and one bus as targets, all suggested a similar method of attacks.

There was also speculation that the devices were so similar to those used two weeks ago that they may even have been part of the same batch.

There will need to be detailed chemical analysis of the substance that did not detonate, in order to prove that conclusively that it was indeed explosive, he said.

[petepillow]

4. but how is it that all four of them failed?

talk about luck...

[evermind]

5. Well, if they were all put together in the same way, or from the same

batch of "explosives", maybe all made by the same person, it's not so far fetched.

The alternate scenario - blow your detonators (or small charge) then run like hell, leaving your device behind for a forensics fest by the authorities - seems equally improbable: it's very unlikely these people will get clean away, which means some possibly strenuous interrogation, and long sentences.

Dunno. Puzzling evidence..

[Windy]

6. Bad batch of explosive obviously

Its clear from the failures, that the same individual(s) made all the bombs. Lets hope they don't suceed next time. It's obvious these people are on a mission.

[Brotherjohn]

7. I guess all this is good, and bad.

The bad news is it sounds like it probably was Al Qaeda again, and not just some copycat.

The good news is they failed this time.

If it was Al Qaeda again and they were planning on an identical attack, it still could have been a warning ... on the heels of the verbal warning yesterday. Imagine if it succeeded: the same thing again, not two weeks later. It would have been horrific, and shown that they really "mean business".

Again though, the good news... it failed. Hopefully, they're more impotent than they think. AND they've left more clues now to catch those responsible.

[evermind]

8. Yep, it will be really interesting to see what, if anything, comes out

about the organisational affiliations and motivations of the attempted bombers (if/when they are caught).

If forensic evidence ties these attacks to the previous ones (as the BBC are speculating) then it must shed light on the previous attacks also.

I wonder if anything surprising will come out, and whether the simple gloss Blair is offering will stand up to scrutiny?