Yeah, I know, this is coming from 'National Review' so it is of course suspect at its source, but I found the argument itself compelling enough to comment on.
The nut of the argument is; that the four men who died in the London bombings of 7-7 did not intend their actions to be 'suicide attacks', and that they had every intent of escaping.
The question remaining is whether they were deliberately killed as part of the attacks by their handlers - something Ledeen makes a decent case for, of whether their deaths were an accident of timing.
Given my cynicsim, I opt for the former. I think he makes the case fairly clearly (albeit in the form of a dialogue which is irritating), that the young men who committed that atrocity had no intent of being part of the eventual death toll - and that they were themselves victims of their handlers and their agenda.
Most interesting to me, is that their have been no further attacks in London (or elsewhere in GB) since 7-7. Which leads me to think that the atmosphere for generating suicide bombers from among the Muslim youth pop. of England is simply not that fertile a place to grow terror.
In other words, I think that they found four young men who were willing to act out - and their handlers decided to use them up in the one attack.
Food for thought though, eh?