Wednesday, August 23, 2006

"Suspects' So-Called Suicide Vids Seen Suspicious"

The other day on I saw a video realistically and dramatically re-enact (or provisionally anticipate) the scene in a crowded market when a suicide bomber sets of his bomb. No dialogue, just images juxtaposed; no text. It was compelling to watch the last 30 seconds unfolding before the carnage erupted. Everything was so normal; there was a child playing quietly by the kerb, who catches the eye of the malefactor just as the bomber's jacket opens to reveal the cylinders of explosive; then there is a flash and a huge conflagration...I've never been anywhere near where such an act had occurred. It was, as I recall, slugged as part of an anti-bombing campaign. I went looking for it again today when I started to write this column and cannot find it via my own googling skills. If it shows up again (youtube, anyone?), I'll post the link.

I mention this because, among the apparently damning bits of evidence discovered by British police among the effects ond possessions of the accused 'chem-lab bomber' conspiracy are what are reported to be 'suicide-bombing' videos. These are alleged to be videos used by terrorist organizations to accustom volunteer suicide bombers to their chosen tasks.

(I have never seen an example of one such, but it must be a fascinating text to study, and I would very much like to see one: how fascinating to analyze the construction of the necessary languages...)

The apparent complexity and delicacy of the chemistry necessitated by the volatility of the ingredients, the mixing of which more or less privately would be required to fashion said bomb, that have so far been disclosed or discussed notwithstanding, the fact that these suspects were in possession certain videos should not, I think, be admissable as evidence of their intentions.

I haven't seen the alleged conspirators' alleged suicide training videos, but I have seen that San Andreas video.

So I wanna know: How, if the argument shall be made that the actions and situations 'acted out' in San Andreas are deemed NOT to have a deleterious effect, or NOT make any 'dangerous' impressions on the participants' psycho-social stabilityhow, under these claims can the intentions of the alleged terror plotters be thought to be reliably indicated by their possession of any video whatsoever?


Anonymous said...

The videos of bombing/IED events I have seen IIRC are repeated from showings on al Jazeera. You might try looking into some of that footage.

from Ruth

Metro99 said...


Bearing in mind that my specialty is accounting/finance, I've read a few articles posted by chemists (via Lenin's Tomb) that asserted in mind-numbing detail, that the reduction of 3% commercial hydrogen peroxide to the 30% required to become one of the binary precursors to an effective TATP explosive (the second precursor being tri-acetone) would require a highly skilled chemist (or explosives expert) working in a controlled environment (such as a lab). Another factor is that the addition of the concentrated peroxide to the acetone must be done VERLY slowly over the course of many hours. Such a requirement would make this procedure occurring in the lavatory of an airliner in flight an absolute impossibility.

In addition the concentrated peroxide releases toxic fumes that would immobilize the person pouring it in an enclosed environment. Finally, the peroxide would eat through any container not made of high-temperature glass. It was a fascinating article made all the more enjoyable with dry British wit dripping with contempt for the breathless fear mongerers in the UK security forces.

Color me skeptical.

Anonymous said...

Hello Everyone

I have made a Web site about worship leader.

I hope you check it out.