Monday, July 09, 2007

CHAPATTI FLOUR GANG CONVICTED: Jihadi flour-and-peroxide boobs sent over

Failed chapatti flour and peroxide bomb from 2005 looked more like your breakfast bowl of mush after it fell to the kitchen floor. Acted liked it, too.

Almost two years after failed bomb attacks sent shudders through London on July 21, 2005, four men were convicted today in the case," wrote the New York Times a few minutes ago.

"In court today, four men — Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29; Hussain Osman, 28; Yassin Omar, 26; and Ramzi Mohammed, 25; all immigrants from the Horn of Africa — were found guilty of conspiracy to murder in the attempted bombings," it continued.

"Mr. Ibrahim, described by prosecutors as the leader of the group, traveled to Sudan in 2003 and to Pakistan in 2004 to train at terror camps, prosecutors said ..."

"It is not clear why the explosives failed to detonate, the prosecution said during the six-month trial," wrote reporter Alan Cowell.

More than likely, answers your friendly neighborhood GlobalSecurity.Org Senior Fellow, because the "bomb-makers" were another collection of stupid men, in contravention of the usual received wisdom that jihadists are Islamo-MacGyvers, always well-trained, efficient, smart and capable of whipping up a batch of death from anything.

"The homemade bombs contained a mixture of chapatti flour, used to make unleavened bread, and hydrogen peroxide," wrote the newspaper.

During the trial, the prosecution presented a case in which the incompetent plans of the Londonistan bombers were scientifically viable.

In the flour and peroxide bomber case, prosecution took pains to convince that the bombs, which fizzled, were deadly. In this, a variety of experts were trotted out to make statements to point in this general direction although they were never particularly convincing, except as arguments from authority, as to how or why cobbled-together soggy things consisting of flour and an indeterminate concentration of store bought hydrogen peroxide would be so.

A senior case officer at the Forensics Explosives Laboratory in Kent, tested samples [of the mess pictured above] and attested "It was comparable to the gelignite and the TNT ...These are both high explosives as well."

Another witness was brought to attest to the chemistry savvy of one of the bombers.

He flunked an introductory chemistry course, it was said, and in our nuts world of anti-terror work, instead of this being evidence of a lazy dunce, a contributing and rather obvious reason as to why plans might have failed, it was portrayed as the opposite.

From January of this year, the BBC reported:

"Ann Obatomi, [one of the terrorist's] chemistry teacher at Enfield College, told the court that when the student had taken the course, the syllabus included rates of reaction and 'looking at the effects of temperature, the use of catalysts, to increase the rate of reaction'.

" 'They would find out if they increase the concentration, that would increase the rate,' she said."

"The court was told that Mr. Omar took four hours of chemistry a week but at the end of the academic year, in summer 1999, he failed the course as his attendance tailed off."

In the counter-to-common-sense world of terror assessment, failing an introductory chemistry course at the equivalent of a community college is evidence that you're a mastermind.

In any case, the Chapatti Flour Gang serves as another stinging-to-al-Qaeda piece of evidence that the terror organization and those inspired by it do not commonly make the best of operatives and foot soldiers, contrary to the mythology embraced by talking heads and politicians in the mainstream news media.

And such people certainly do not constitute any part of a reason to continue in the pulverization of the failed state of Iraq, or the trashing of a nation's good reputation because of the empty-headed religious belief that if al Qaeda isn't fought there, they'll come to overthrow us here.

Update: "In the trial [of the Chapatti Flour Gang] that ended today, the jury said it was not able to reach a verdict on [two remaining defendants] — Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 34, and Adel Yahya, 24," wrote. the New York Times. "During the trial, Mr. Asiedu, who was accused by prosecutors of dumping his back-pack of explosives in a park, turned against the other defendants." Adel Yahya was not in Britain at the time of the failed bombings.

Peter Clarke, "[London's] most senior counterterrorism police officer," issued a statement pooh-poohing the idea that the failed bombers only wanted to "protest the war in Iraq."

“These men obviously set out to replicate the horrors that had been inflicted on Londoners on July 7, 2005,” read the statement.

“The convictions show that the jury rejected the blatant, indeed ridiculous, lies told by these defendants in a futile attempt to escape justice. These men are dedicated terrorists who no longer pose a danger to the public ... "

The jury, apparently, handed in a more nuanced verdict that was desired. The Times, therefore, called the results of the trial "inconclusive."

Your GlobalSecurity.Org Senior Fellow reckons the jury had it right. The incompetent fashioning of the failed chapatti flour and peroxide bombs was too complicated and tortured to be the work of war-protesting hoaxers.

Dud chapatti flour bomb with nuts and bolts taped to it. Note where detonator was scooped out by bomb squad.

Why the Chapatti Flour Gang's bombs were a joke.

The Chapatti Flour Gang bomb chemist who flunked out of community college.

The Chapatti Flour Gang listened to kuffars -- Meatloaf and Michael Bolton. Bloody hell!? No CD's of Karaoke Jihad: Sing-along with Ayman?


Anonymous Dunc said...

You don't even need the peroxide - flour on its own is an explosive (under very particular circumstances). Therefore I have several pounds of high explosives in my kitchen cupboard - quick, somebody lock me up! (Let's not even mention the chlorine-based bleach I use to sterilise my homebrew equipment, which can produce DEADLY CHLORINE GAS! when mixed with acids...)

5:51 AM  
Anonymous JonB said...

I think the point of all the claims in court that they could have made something explode is to demonstrate that they were _trying_ to make a bomb, not that they did make a bomb.

The accused were claiming that it was some sort of demo and they weren't trying to replicate 7/7. By demonstrating that with HTP and Chapati flour you could make a bang and showing that they had 'researched' this, and that was what they had attempted to do, then it is clearly shown that they were trying to kill people.

Not try out a brilliant new way to make chapatis on the move.

While their ability is laughable, their intentions are not, and had they managed to find someone with half a brain cell willing to help them, there would have been a right mess.
(And probably less dough)

Incidentally, what was in the detonators and where'd they get them?

All in all this is very re-assuring - our enemies are a bit thick.

5:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home