NEWS: Man Admits Role in Failed London Attack

Osman Hussain, 27, who was arrested in Italy, is claiming that the recent failed London bombing was intended to get people's attention, not to kill anyone. He denies that he is a terrorist and it is believed that he will resist extradition. Hussain's real name is Hamdi Isaac. Hussain's brother, Remzi Isaac, was also arrested after he led police to Hussain's hideout.



I don't think that the "We only meant to scare people" defense is going to wash in this new climate. Terror is terror regardless of whether or not it is deadly. This individual should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.atsnn.com...
www.atsnn.com...
www.atsnn.com...
www.atsnn.com...



[edit on 2005/7/30 by GradyPhilpott]



[edit on 7-30-2005 by Springer]

[edit on 31-7-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 1-8-2005 by John bull 1]

Im sorry but carrying any form of explosives on the tubes after the previous attacks is terrorism full stop, especially when the 'scare' operation almost mirrored the original attacks.

Whether they are pawns or not in a operation controlled by who? is a valid and ongoing debate. To Quote a famous and old British legal statement

Ignorance of the Law is no Justification for Defence

They must be punished to the full extent of British Law. Never to be released, 'At Her Majesties Pleasure' meaning the Home Secretary periodically reviews the case and decides whether or not to release them.

What is worrying though in this case is that recently this power of indefinate detention (the UK differs here massively to the US where multiple multiple life sentences can be passed) is being challenged by the EU and britains affiliation with it.

I think this may be an interesting political situation to watch especially with the recent EU 'NO' votes when all the dust has settled, it even has the potentail to decide the future of the UK in Europe, or a another effect of the terrorist attacks.

MischeviouslyReadingTheEUConstitution



[edit on 30-7-2005 by MischeviousElf]

What a crock. What about the packages in the trunk of the car that look like nail bombs? If they're so innocent, they should have turned themselves in after some poor guy got himself blasted because of what they had done. Frankly, I'm surprised they're not taking the govt. conspiracy route - claiming innocence and blaming the whole thing on some vast NWO conspiracy. Well, maybe that's plan B.

``
Isaac or Hussain, or whatever he calls himself,
does not deny he (and the others) placed the bomb(s) intentionally

the wrinkle is that the devices were not intended to kill anyone...
the devices were ?intentionally? defective, as they were meant to
cause fear & panic- not carnage or loss of life. So HE says....

is his/their defense...to seperate their cell, individually & collectively,
from the larger group of Jihadists & SuicideBombers??
but admit to being only Anarchists performing a Political Act of disobedience

In Any Event; its good to see that bomber #4 was tracked & apprehended in a sort time - and even across several borders...

OK so what did he actually do?

He carried out a failed terrorist attack right?

Now if you carry out a failed murder, are you tried for murder? Or attempted murder? The former carries a very harsh sentence whilst the later carries a comparatively lighter sentence.

Do we have any distinction between a terrorist attack and an attempted terrorist attack? I dont think we do. Doesnt that seem a bit odd? After all terrorism is a means to an end right? If the death resulting from the terror attacks is irrelevant then surely causing terror is the crime here.

Doesnt that strike you as a very precarious legal definition? A scary movie can scare the crap out of some one. Is that terrorism? A masked man Jumping out of the bushes and scaring some kids, is that terrorism?

What actually constitutes terrorism? Is it just the generation of fear? Or does it require actual physical damage? These are questions I dont think our legal system has adequately examined and defined.

Why?

not totally on topic but, where is that ATSNN submission about the uncovering of an MI6 double-agent leading the bombing attacks on London, sourced from bbc and some people were saying they just heard the story live at fox, then someone said that the bbc article is edited later to remove MI6 keywords from the article. ? . Where did that thread go, it was posted today. was it bogus? Im asking this honestly, not just to imply things. if that news was real then it would be a milestone. (not the first though)

Here it is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also here:

Djohnsto77's thread

thanks guys, I couldnt find it in the recent posts+24 hours you see.

Originally posted by subz
What actually constitutes terrorism? Is it just the generation of fear? Or does it require actual physical damage? These are questions I dont think our legal system has adequately examined and defined.

Why?

I'm pretty sure that governments have given considerable thought to these matters. Perhaps, it is you who has not given it adequate thought.

Yeah, this guy has to be put away--perhaps not for life (or equivalent in the U.K.) considering the circumstances and his claims, but for a long time.