Talk:2010 Stockholm bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is TT?[edit]

There were a lot of references to a 'TT' in some of the references. Apparently they received the email about the attacks along with the security services. I wasn't sure who they were so I removed them. I have my suspicion that it is a reference to Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. When using the abbreviation TT here in Sweden so it's about Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå.
Thank you. I added it back with a wikilink :) . 74.83.33.194 (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of saying that "the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt and the Swedish Security Service described the bombings as acts of terrorism." What else can they be described as? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

According to this German newspaper[1] the man was a "young Iraqi". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar report from dailymail[2]. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper reports linked say that the information is taken from his facebook and muslima.com accounts. Also, if he was married to a Swedish woman for six years, it stands to reason that he was probably naturalized as a Swedish citizen, but the reports linked do not actually state that he was. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the Security Police press conference in Stockholm earlier today, they emphazised that they had no confirmation of his country of orgin. It was not clear why they could not confirm Iraq or what the alternatives would be.

First suicide bombing?[edit]

This is not the first suicide bombing in Nordic countries. Here in Finland we had at least the Myyrmanni explosion (Myyrmanni bombing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.138.62 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and from the history we can find many more examples of suicide attacks aginst Nordic settelments, espcially during times of war. However, if the presumed suspect holds, these events would be correctly described as the first Islamic terrorism suicide attack against Nordic civilians. --hydrox (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think what they are trying to say is, it's the first Islamic suicide attack in the Nordic countries. I guess it was only a matter of time, after all this cartoon hysteria :( --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Hotel Jørgensen explosion. I don't know if it is worthy of a "See also" section for this article, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist bombing[edit]

the evidence so far doesnt suggest some sort of committed Islamist organised ideology. Right now at least it seems way to early to rush to judgement based on media pronouncements (no official comment as such has been made) and is akin to such Lone wolf terrorism attack as the Austin plane crash and the OK federal building bombing (where christian tracts were mentioned wihtout such attribution). Sure if and when the investigation pronounces such linkages then we can go and add it, right now its the verdict of the media and thus allegedLihaas (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security Police said at the press conference today that the attack was "well organized" and that they worked under the assumption he had helpers - for certain at least up until the execution stage. You are right that current public evidence might be lone wolf, but a likely future development is uncovering a larger network of jihadists. There's been multiple raids but they're announced late or not at all, e.g. the 04:00 raid was secret until neighbours went to the press.
Thats seems like heading to the track, so eventually an addition when forthcoming with evidence would validate an addition, i just thinks its a little early at the moment.Lihaas (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the cats Category:Islam in Sweden and Category:Islamic terrorism - every broadsheet newspaper in the world (including the Swedish ones) is now calling this an act of "islamic terrorism". The cat intro says: "This category is for topics related to both proven or suspected cases of terrorism or violence significantly motivated by beliefs attributed to Islam is some form", so this article clearly qualifies. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the content provided in this discussion instead of answering your own and you will then find that the media sensationalism is not fact or truth where the investigation is ongoing and no official stance has been made. Furthermore if every "broadsheet press" is mentioning it then cite that with the requisite caveats.
The fact that he is not a lone nut has not been affirmed, only specualtive.Lihaas (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proper categories are Category:Islamism in Sweden (a subcat of "Islam") and Category:Islamic terrorism. Lihas, it is unclear what you are complaining about. The attacker may have been a lone nut, but he was clearly an Islamist lone nut, which makes this an act of Islamic terrorism. It's not like you need to have shaken Bin Laden's hand before your attack counts as "Islamist". The reason that the attacker is still technically a "suspect" is that they haven't done DNA tests yet, it's not like there is any doubt as to his identity, and there is no doubt that this individual was radicalized and embraced militant Islamism during his stay in Luton during 2001 to 2007. --dab (𒁳) 13:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just answered your own query. The suspect is just that a suspect, there has been no affirmation as i put forward above other than pure media speculation, as always the media goes crazy looking for answers in the first horus and days.Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian reports that the the suicide bomb attack has been hailed by an al-Qaida-linked organisation, the Islamic State of Iraq, with clear approval and suggestions of group membership. Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet cites reports from Iraq Media Net that the bomber received jihad bomb training in Iraq by the same organisation. I'm not sure how official the "proof" needs to be, I suppose we'll have to wait a few days for his holographic al-Quaeda membership card to be found.81.227.230.210 (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, it is "pure media speculation" that the perpetrator was called Taimour Abdulwahab? I am all for keeping down the journalistic speculation, but you are really pushing it here. It was the Swedish authorities, not the media, who stated that they are virtually certain of the attacker's identity[3]. Yes, so they said '98%' because the DNA results aren't in yet. That's certainly good enough for me to treat this as the "mainstream opinion".

81.227, "Islamic terror" doesn't mean it needs to have any connection with Al-Qaeda. If you decide you want to kill a few random people because you want to make a point that Islam rules, you are an Islamic terrorist, even if you have never set foot in an Al-Qaeda training camp. The term indicates the motivation for a crime, not some sort of membership in a club. --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. If we admit that this is an act of Islamist terror, we undermine all of Sweden's (and Europe's) foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel and World Jewry in general. It's getting harder and harder to spin outrage against bombings in Sweden while condoning them in Israel. Pedantrician (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, if there was one pulling the string, there were others helping him organize it all. I hope this wakes up Sweden and hopefully their immigratopn po;icy that has already failed, will be tightened. Norum 01:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann: You are sayign that because he has a muslim name it is Islamist? That is certainly not the case and racist as well. So the christians who shoot up schools, etc in europe and america are a part of christian terrorism? Im not against adding it in, but on the premise that it is officially sourced as and when it happens, thers no need to rush to judgement, wikinews exists for those stories not wikipedia the encyclopaedia.
Norum the repercussions and hopes for sweden are not really a reason to cite this as islamist. again, if and when the swedish investigation affirms something of the sort, then it can be cited as islamist.Lihaas (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"because he has a muslim name it is Islamist" - look at the name: "Abdulwahab", "Servant of the Wahabis". That iis probably not a real name, but rather a statement of purpose. Pedantrician (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get why you're arguing if this was islamist. Shouldn't the audio message the man recorded and sent to media be considered? It warns that an “Islamic state” has been created, vows many will die and adds: “Our actions will speak for themselves.” details here audio message youtube 81.227.230.210 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, you're forgetting that the litmus test for material in Wikipedia isn't "truth," or the outcome of any sort of Swedish investigation, but WP:Verifiability based on reliable secondary sources. And universally among these sources, it links the suicide bomber to his radical Islamic (Islamist) beliefs. The connection is also self-evident based on his own-writings: "I never travelled to the Middle East to work or earn money, I went there for jihad" [4]. Therefore, this category is perfectly valid per Wikipedia policy and denying so is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, hows this for accomodation in the interim: cite the fact that hes islamist but put the caveat for who claimed so till official calls are forthcoming?
but seems to be  Done alreadyLihaas (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Europol has officially categorized the attack as Islamist terrorism in its 2011 report. Therefore the motive was added to the infobox. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship[edit]

Re this, look, Hydrox, I am happy to believe the man was a Swedish citizen, but the point is that the reports linked do not state as much, which is why I have removed the claim. Please explain on what grounds you have restored it. In fact, one reference states that his wife was a Swedish citizen, apparently implying that he was not, but we just don't know unless we have some reference. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of swedish sources say he was. "Vid en presskonferens på måndagen bekräftade Säkerhetspolisen att 28-åringen har sitt ursprung i Mellanöstern och att han blev svensk medborgare 1992." http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/svart-att-forsta-att-det-verkligen-kan-vara-han-1.1226263 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can't find an English-language source for the claim. I remember picking up in the first reports that he was a Swedish citizen. The above says "in a press conference on Monday Säpö told the 28-year-old had been brought up in the Middle East, and received Swedish citizenship in 1992." --hydrox (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, I don't have a problem with using a Swedish-language source as long as it is identifiably tagged to the claim :) --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, if he was born in Baghdad in 1981, grew up in Tranås, and was naturalized in 1992, it stands to reason he did not immigrate in 1992 as well; this was probably a mistake made in translation. To "grow up" may reasonably cover, say, ages 6 to 12, so I would imagine that he immigrated with his parents in the mid or late 1980s. Seeing that Swedish nationality law allows naturalization after 5 years, it would follow that he came to Sweden at some point between 1982 and 1987. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Swedish 'ursprung' means origin; so they only said he was of Middle Eastern origin. (For the record, Swedish is not my native tongue.) What you said above implies that he moved to Sweden somewhere between ages of 1 and 6, so he probably received all of his schooling in Sweden at least. --hydrox (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
or perhaps he was just lying in his muslima.com profile. Reportedly, he claimed to have been born in Baghdad and moved to Sweden in 1992 in that profile, and further that he intended to move back to an Arab country in the future. Perhaps he just thought that sounded more Muslim to his potential mates than being born in Tranås. As long as the press reports rely on things like facebook or dating site profiles, we won't know for sure. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until we have official data. Person can become a Swedish citizen also through eg. adoption, legitimation, etc. --hydrox (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts cast on his Iraqi origins may come from the known fact that the Iraqi Embassy in Stockholm is known to have issued more than 26,000 passports on false grounds.[1] If his documents are from Iraq's Stockholm Embassy, further evidence may be needed to establish his true country of origin. 81.227.230.210 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thelocal.se/6255/20070131/

Warning by member of the armed forces?[edit]

Hmmmm -very similar to the viral hoax about the grateful terrorist (see here [5]. Not sure this is yet encyclopedic. Springnuts (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news agency, TT, that released the quote said it was from a very credible source. TT is Sweden's premier news agency and a credible source probably means the recipient of the warning. Note that the armed forces are not denying a warning was sent, they are only denying the armed forces had detailed knowledge of the attack - this really is a cop out answer that says "it happened but we can't say it did". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.230.210 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no, it just means they cannot know about every sms sent by every Swedish soldier. Don't be a conspiracy theorist. What do you expect them to say? "Yes, we habitually monitor all private communication of all our personnel, and we can confirm/deny such an sms has been sent"? --dab (𒁳) 19:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Residence[edit]

The man appears to have been living in Luton according to the article in the Daily mail. He recently hada 3rd child with his wife and Neighbours are quoted saying they saw him play with the kids every day. It is believed he travelled to Sweden only a few weeks ahead to execute the bombings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.230.210 (talk)

BBC reports the man moved in to his new house in Luton within the last year. Aftonbladet reports the man returned to Tranås, Sweden 4 weeks ago. 81.227.230.210 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it appears he was still officially residing in Luton. But he also seems to have moved to Sweden inofficially, about two years ago, at least the car he blew up he bought legally two years ago. At least he seems to have managed to father a son in Luton in 2009. He also went to Jordan. Seems like he has been more or less moving about and preparing his failed attack since about 2007. This is all pretty much hearsay at this stage. Sure we can "reference" the hearsay to newspaper websites, but this is just googling by proxy, the journalists are also relying on dodgy information and we just parrot that. --dab (𒁳) 19:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you got the information that he bought the bomb car two years ago. Please provide a source. According to Aftonbladet, he bought it just a few WEEKS ago, and they have interview the seller , and they have published the ad for the car. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article8269283.ab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.230.210 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I "read it somewhere". Which is my point. It was probably just a journalist misreporting something or making things up. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Swedish media, his wife has legal residence (registered as an umarried woman) in Hässelby, Sweden presumably at the location of the 04:00 raid, but we know from British press that she's lived for years in Luton. The man had legal residence as an unmarried man in Tranås, Sweden. These registrations with Swedish authorities might have been made in order to receive Swedish welfare. The welfare amounts are higher for single parents. I can google media sources for these statements if desired later. 81.227.230.210 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is wrong[edit]

The car was not parked where the star of the first explosion is right now on Olof Palmes gata. The car was parked in the southeast corner, right outside the small shop of newspapers and tobacco, called Duvans citykiosk, by the pillars in Olof Palmes gata 13. Please change! Calle Widmann (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been corrected.The car was parked where the red car is on this picture.--Profero (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! :) Calle Widmann (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions by country[edit]

Believe long list of reactions violates WP:Undue. The section is unduly long compared to the rest of the article. It ultimately seems that having such a large number of reactions provides no added value to the article. This was not a "major" terrorist attack like the London, Moscow bombings etc. The reactions should stick to the more relevant parties involved such as fellow Scandinavian countries, which are linked geographically and facing similar issues with radicalism among immigrants.

Somebody please tell me why the Slovakian reaction merits inclusion. We might as well search for reaction from Madagascar, Suriname and Micronesia. We should rely mainly on WP:RS - "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." If it wasn't published in a reliable secondary source, we should question why it should be included in the first place. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, youre certainly free to add Madagascar and the like if you find it, but improvement is not grounds for deletion.
Reactions lists are almost always longer because there are so many reactions. "major" and "minor" are highly subejctive terms where a bombing killing 30 in pakistan would equivalent in some eyes to bombing killing or maiming or destroying something in lets say Sweden or Paris (even if the no one was killed and the Arc de Triomphe, or Eiffel Tower, were rbought down it would be more than minor"). And what would disqualify Slovakia's reaction?(Lihaas (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
If the bombs had all gone off as intended the impact would have been horrendous. This is both a local and a non-local issue of major significance. Thus, all international reactions are utterly important to mention. --Profero (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You two haven't provided any policy grounds for maintaining the undue number of reactions, which are rely primarily on sources that are not WP:RS. Also see WP:NOTNEWS: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As weve stated, we think it is noteworthy news. It may "automatically" be news, but under the circumstances it is.
At the very least explain why X,Y,X uis irrelevant accordign to you so we can work through that(Lihaas (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Video[edit]

There is no policy that say that videos cant be used as a source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly can if it is a RS.
btw- the IP seems hell bent on his POV as hes already tried 2 reasons tot ake it off in a matter of mins. this has 2 supports and is consensus until proven otherwise. (previously an arguement was used that it is "irrelevant and confusing" because of reptitions. I have since removed the repetion and merged the sentence (another editor made it 2 sentences), and now a new excusse is invented.(Lihaas (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
It is a RS, Rapport on SVT. I just looked at it and it does not say anything about that Swedish citizens previously committed suicide attacks abroad. So it should be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rapport video might not be saying anything about it, but the claim itself was valid. There have been a few other Swedish citizens that have suicide bombed. One of them in 2010 was a Swedish citizen with origins in northern Africa that killed himself in Mosul, Iraq, see http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=4191378 81.227.230.210 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False flag operation[edit]

Conspiracy theorists believe that the Stockholm attacks were staged, in light of their own analysis of evidence and reports. A section has been created on the article discussing this, but clearly because of some people's own political beliefs, it is promptly deleted. This is completely unfair on other people's points of view and those who wish to see a full analysis of the events from existing point of view. Numerous sources have been provided to back up claims made in it, and just like there are conspiracy theories about other 'terrorist' attacks and dedicated pages/sections to them on Wikipedia, so too are there theories about this one and a potential false flag. It is not speculative or one's own biased belief, but rather a neutral acceptance that certain others do not believe the 'official' story. Other people are curious about such theories and deserve to read about them on Wikipedia. It is entirely valid, and I shall be reinstating the section. 81.97.199.146 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to include that entry in the article, at least you need to find better sources than Internet forums. HeyMid (contribs) 21:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how there is the term 'cynics'- web forum users are part of these 'cynics'. Remember, the mass media is not always reliable, so open your eyes to the fact that they can be deceptive. The opinions of forum users are therefore of critique merit and worthy of mention. Remember, no proof has been given that the SUSPECT, yes SUSPECT did it. Please therefore refrain from deleting words such as 'alleged' bomber, because until there is concrete proof the SUSPECT carried out the 'attacks', then in the eyes of every civilised nation on Earth, he is innocent. Wikipedia should not be the resource to convict the man, so accept that there are people who believe differently to the 'official' story and stop gagging their valid beliefs and valid right to believe.81.97.199.146 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple, in order for Wikipedia to maintain its reliability, the encyclopedia upholds a strict policy concerning reliable sources. This is, among other things, to make sure that material inserted are not too fringey and that it adheres to a neutral point of view. You additions seems to me to fail in all these aspects, and are therefore not suitable for the article. I would also advice you to stop reinserting the material in the article, as you are in fact violating the three-revert rule, which states that you can be blocked for edit warring if you revert more than 3 times. As soon as material you inserted is reverted and challenged, the proper conduct for you is to discuss it on the talk page of the article, in order to achieve a consensus about the decision concerning the challenged material. I hope this helps. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly about people's own beliefs on the matter, namely your own. You refer to web forums as being unreliable. How about other websites cited which also make reference to to the possible false flag connection. Would you care to elaborate on why Wikipedia contains articles and sections explaining false flags and conspiracy theories on other 'attacks' in history, such as 9/11?81.97.199.146 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question of notability. Certain conspiracy theories, although rejected by mainstream scholarship, nevertheless are deemed to be so widespread through mentions in numerous reliable sources, that it is notable to mention in the article. Perhaps in time the theory you mention will also become notable, but on this early stage, it must be considered non-notable as no reliable source contains any information about it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. It is precisely this 'gagging' of information which leads to friction, ignorance and misunderstandings. You fail to acknowledge that a) a valid conspiracy theory exists, and b) that there are reliable (as per the pedantic Wikipedia definition) sources that address the existence of a conspiracy theory. When, in that case, will this be considered 'notable' by your standards? When the BBC mention it? Look at the non-forum sources I have provided again, and how they relate to this. I think you are simply afraid to admit that a false flag operation does not tie in with the 'official' story, and as such, is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.199.146 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps provide a link to the BBC source here, I haven't been able to find it in your edit. Also, you did link several reliable sources, but they do not document this particular theory, they only mention various things that you then synthesise as being evidence of your theory. If you read WP:SYNTH you will see that this is not acceptable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note on WP:Notability: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Also: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." (my bold) Davesmith au (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article content is governed by WP:DUE and WP:RS. This is what Saddhiyama intended to refer to. --dab (𒁳) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Sorry about any confusion my mistake may have caused. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 Stockholm bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: prosecutions?[edit]

Given what is said in the article about the suspicion that various others were involved, have there been any developments on this front since 2010? Was anyone prosecuted? Beorhtwulf (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Stockholm_bombings&oldid=1212404957"