In a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the Madrid explosions of March11, 2004, written on March 31, 2004, Juan Avilés, Director of the Spanish Instituto Universitario de Investigación sobre Seguridad Interior (University Institute for Research into Homeland Security), had drawn attention to an intriguing coincidence.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists belonging to the Al Qaeda had hijacked four aircraft for their terrorist strikes in the US. Three of the hijacked aircraft hit the intended targets. The fourth failed. On March11, 2004, terrorists belonging to a Salafi organisation of Morocco, believed to be linked to the Al Qaeda, caused four explosions in Madrid trains. Why the number four? Was it just a coincidence without significance? Or, was there something more to it?
These questions have become even more intriguing after the London blasts of July7, 2005. The perpetrators of these blasts too caused four explosions--three deliberately in metro trains and thefourth--either accidentally or deliberately--in a bus. One theory under consideration by the London Police is that the fourth explosive device was also probably meant for a metro train, but the person responsible for the strike could not make it to the targeted train.
Why this number four again--for a third time? Does it have any significance for theAl Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist organisations associated with it in the International Islamic Front (IIF)? These are questions worth exploring.
All credit to the British Police for the rapid progress in the investigation. From the governmental and non-governmental accounts of the investigation available so far, it would seem that the break-through came from a passenger who had got out of the bus before the explosion. He had stated that one of the passengers was behaving in a nervous manner, frequently fiddling with a bag which he was carrying. The police recovered identity documents with photos (a credit card and a driving license) from the mangled bus. The passenger identified the photo as that of the nervous man. In the meanwhile, his mother, on hearing of the explosions and the casualties caused, started making enquiries with the police about her missing son and identified the photo as that of her son.
The police started looking for him in the films recorded by the closed circuit television in the metro stations. In one of the films, they reportedly noticed him along with three others, all carrying identical rucksacks. They also recovered from the targeted trains the identity documents of the other three perpetrators. Thereafter, establishing their place of residence and family background would have been easy.
The tentative conclusion of the police is that the perpetrators must have died in the explosion. Hence, this could be a case of suicide terrorism, but they refrain from categorically saying so. In reply to questions as to why terrorists, planning to carry out acts of terrorism, should carry documents on their person, which would help the police to identify them, the reply given is that they apparently wanted the world to know that it was they who carried out the explosions.
Another intriguing aspect comes to the fore here. Presuming they were all suicide terrorists who carried the explosive device on their rucksacks, the explosions, which were so powerful that they badly damaged the train compartments and the bus and turned them into twisted metal, would have also blown up the perpetrators and their belongings to pieces. How did the identity documents carried by them on their person remain intact? One can allow for this possibility in one or two cases. How did this happen in all the four cases?
Another question which needs exploration is: Did the perpetrators really perish in the explosions or did they deliberately leave the identity documents in such a manner as to be recoverable by the police and get out of the trains after suitably placing the rucksacks inside? This would have created the impression that they were suicide terrorists, who had died in the explosions and enabled them to escape capture and flee the country.
According to the police, they have established the identities of all the four perpetrators, but the media has identified only three of them as of Pakistani origin, apparently on the basis of background briefings by subordinate police officers. Neither the police officers nor the media have so far said anything about the identity of the fourth person. They apparently feel that the revelation of the identities of three of them would not hamper further investigation, but the revelation of the identity of the fourth could. Why? What is so special about him?
The police are also reportedly looking for a fifth person, who, they feel, could turn out to be the master planner, who orchestrated the four explosions. It is interesting to note that while the four perpetrators came from the Leeds/Luton areas with a sizable population of Pakistani origin, the search for the fifth, possibly the master planner, seems to be focussed in the Buckinghamshire area.
The perpetrators identified so far are the following:
Shehzad Tanweer, aged 20 to 22, lived in Leeds. Believed to have blown himself up on a subway train near Aldgate station, east London. The bombing left seven people dead. He sometimes worked at his family’s fish and chip shop in a suburb of Leeds.Was a good student who played cricket for a local team. Reportedly went to Lawnswood school in Beeston, before studying sports science at Leeds University. He did not have a regular job. According to theGuardian, he is believed to have recently travelled to Pakistan. His father, Mohammed Mumtaz, was originally from the Faisalabad region in Pakistani Punjab.