Attack on London: Hunting the 7/7 Bombers

It seems today's storytellers really have a difficult time conveying time frame and accepting that time changes. What is acceptable today will not be acceptable sometime in the very near future. Whilst it does use a lot of real footage and photos, and talks with a few survivors, it does not go far enough. It is disjointed at times and doesn't speak to enough survivors. When a very specific demographic succeeds in blowing up a lot of places in the biggest International city on the planet, you do not go around looking for people that are opposite of said demographic; and we don't want to be preached to about it since we lived through it. If a 5'11 140 lb male 20 - 30 yr old is the perp/suspect, you don't target a 4' 200 lb 70 year old female. To find fault with investigators 20 years after the fact is Asinine. To even bring it up just goes to show that in 2025 people care more about optics than actually saving people's lives; and to preach about how awful it was that police targeted a specific demographic now is a slap in the face to the survivors and victim's family members; and severely minimises the true fear of a population of over 8 million AT THE TIME. I would love to see how these hypocrites would react if they actually lived through an attack on their family member, or themselves. Is it absolutely tragic that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed - yes- AND it's really easy to armchair quarterback that in 2025. The jacka$$e$ that did this were a very specific demographic. That is a fact. You cannot go searching for the opposite and expect to get the criminals. Plus the makers of this series completely forget that Londoners live with bomb attacks - for decades and generations. There was WWI, the Troubles started in 1920, WWII, the Troubles continuing until 2008, and terror attacks in recent years. This series was somehow uploaded out of sequence, so episode three is actually episode four, and episode 4 is actually episode three, so I had to watch it twice. It is appalling and quite astounding that these four idiots only received a minimum 40. What's even more disturbing is that you cannot find any information at all about them. Just like the idiots that attacked NYC. It tells me that England, like the US, has used these idiots to catch bigger fish. Abu Hamza, which radicalised these idiots at least got a life sentence in NY. These four should have been displayed at Traitor's Gate in 2005.

The documentary was fine, not super compelling but generally interesting if not bland.

It is pitiful to watch the relative of the man who was shot by the police. She says the police lied lied lied lied lied, but the story that the suspect jumped over the turnstiles was perpetrated by the public, not by the police. So perhaps you are the liar ma'am.

It is so easy to criticize the police in any situation. In fact the police can almost never win. If you don't do enough, citizens are dying due to terrorist attacks. If you do too much, an innocent life may be taken by accident. You must execute your job with absolute perfection, and then perhaps 25% of the people will think that you did it correctly.

This documentary highlights that people are unbelievably unrealistic and ignorant. In the vast majority of cases, the police are trying their best to do the job and you couldn't do any better.

ABOUT MY REVIEWS:

I do not include a synopsis of the film/show -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.

My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating). For Lifetime Movies for Chicks (LMFC), drop the above scale by 3 notches. A 6 is excellent and 7 almost unattainable. Hi.

Stayed up past midnight in California to watch as soon as it became available. I'm from London and have dozens of friends and family there. This really should be compulsory to be shown in every school and university because it is so well made and produced for an essential subject.

It shows how easily London and the UK is to be attacked. It exposes how those responsible to protect us deliberately do not because they are either afraid to do so in case they are labelled R or because they want the support of the creed responsible.

This documentary makes clear that the blame for the attack rests with Tony Blair. They pull no punches. Wholesale open welcome to those that wanted to carry this out coupled with a refusal to police them led directly to it.

The directors and producers do well to make a balanced series that covers the event in detail. Netflix are to be congratulated on having the courage to show it. Thank you to them. But it's not easy watching and it will likely leave you angry and depressed.

This series is well done, but also paints a very very poor picture of Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism in London. These attacks were 4 years after 9/11, and one would think that major cities all over the world would look at the chaos that occurred and fix their response. One would be wrong. Law Enforcement as well as other first responders literally had no idea what to do. Again this is 4 YEARS, not days, not months, or weeks after 9/11 and they never decided to come up with and carry out training for all possible attacks. If Rick Rescorla could figure out how to create training scenarios for Morgan Stanley in the South Tower of the World Trade Center, then certainly London could run drills in their city. And it's the same BS we in America got :"Oh we had alQueda on a list, we just chose to ignore it" or "Well we really didn't think they were going to do anything because there was "no chatter" If that helps the unintelligence community sleep better at night........ But remember this, you all eventually get exposed for all the lies you tell.

This was a very interesting documentary about the 7/7 London bombings. The interviews with survivors and people who were there that day were definitely the strongest part.

The interview with the civil rights activist felt out of place and didn't really add anything. Suggesting that the police or investigators were being racist just because they were trying to find suspects based on the info they had isn't fair. Profiling, in the context of a manhunt, is a logical and necessary part of narrowing down suspects, based on the information available at the time, not on prejudice.

It's unfortunate that Netflix appears to include these elements to attract certain viewers or to appeal to activist narratives, rather than to enhance the factual quality of the documentary. Investigators have a duty to act on the best leads available, regardless of race, age, or gender, and suggesting otherwise distracts from the real story and the real victims. Doing otherwise would just mean they'd waste time.

Still, even though it got quite frustrating in the end, the documentary remains a worthwhile watch.