Were Plundered Iraqi Explosives Used in UK Bombing?

  I wonder if they were the same as mentioned in this story which faded from the news after the election:

  "Despite pressure from DOD to keep it quiet, the IAEA and the Iraqi Interim Government this month officially reported that 350-tons of dual-use, very high explosives were looted from a previously secure site in the early days of the US occupation in 2003. Administration officials privately admit this material is likely a primary source of the lethal car bomb attacks which cause so many US and Iraqi casualties. In the first presidential candidate debate, on foreign policy, Democratic nominee John Kerry charged that captured munitions and weapons were being turned against Coalition Forces, with US troops suffering 90% of the casualties. But the specifics of the losses from the Al Qa Qaa bunker and building complex, only now being reported, were apparently unknown outside of DOD and the US occupation authorities. The Bush Administration barred the IAEA from any participation in the Iraq invasion and occupation process, and blocked IAEA requests to help in the search for WMD and other dangerous materials. "

•  I was wondering the same thing.

  Happy I'm not the only one. If not this attack, they have plenty for future ones.

  Jesus. 350 tons. What does that look like?

  by strengthANDwisdom on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 08:53:51 AM PDT

  •  What does it look like?

    Multiple IED attacks on convoys daily. What started out as mortar shells remotely detonated by garage door openers has turned into this:
    

    
    June 22, 2005, 1:15AM

    Redesigned bombs pushing U.S. toll higher
    New York Times

    WASHINGTON - American casualties from bomb attacks in Iraq have reached new heights in the last two months as insurgents have begun to deploy devices that leave armored vehicles increasingly vulnerable, according to military records.

    Last month there were about 700 attacks against American forces using so-called improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, the highest number since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    The surge in attacks, officials say, has coincided with the appearance of significant advancements in bomb design, including the use of "shaped" charges that concentrate the blast and give it a better chance of penetrating armored vehicles, causing higher casualties.

    Another change, a senior military officer said, has been the detonation of explosives by infrared lasers, an innovation aimed at bypassing electronic jammers used to block bombs from detonating.

    IEDs of all types caused 33 American deaths in May, and there have been at least 38 fatalities in June, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a Web site that tracks official figures.
    

    by Dreaded Lysergic on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 08:58:27 AM PDT

•  Richard Clarke

  Yesterday morning on Good Morning America, Charlie Gibson interviewed Richard Clarke about the London bombings.  He said the explosive was thought to be RDX (correct acronym?), a military-grade explosive that is very hard to get or make.  He also confimred that RDX is the explosive missing from Iraq, which as we know, was allowed to be pillaged by the US military leadership.  

  I haven't found any other mention of this in the media over the last week, and have been looking since I heard Clarke yesterday.

  If this is true, it needs to get some attention.  It's absolutely disgraceful.

  by kaycarolina on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:01:20 AM PDT

  •  Wow.

    If it's confirmed, that does indeed need to be made very public: a direct link between invading Iraq and a subsequent terrorist attack in a member of the coalition.

    by DrReason on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:07:39 AM PDT

    •  Its not confirmed that they are from Iraq,

      just that they are military grade.

      by ablington on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:20:51 AM PDT

    •  Never mind, I didnt see your 'if'!

      by ablington on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:21:24 AM PDT

  •  Just in this morning

    The most recent news is that those reports are false and the explosives were perhaps not RDX at all. They were, perhaps, homemade by one of the bombers who was a chemistry student. In any case, why build up this expectation that the materials came from Iraq? It's really unlikely and when it finds out they DIDN'T come from Iraq we look stupid. The facts will come out, don't create connections that aren't there just because it makes Bush look bad. Stick to the facts.

    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:12:46 AM PDT

•  I'd be surprised.

  Easier to steal or buy them in the UK. Apparently the explosives used were industrial, and should have a unique chemical ID showing where they were produced, so one way or the other we should know soon.

  by Expat Briton on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:02:37 AM PDT

•  Make that three of us.

  As soon as I learned how much of that material disappeared, I surmised it would reach our shores eventually. Of course, it's the fault of the Democrats for letting the terrorists know that our ports are not secure, not the administration's fault for failing to secure them. If it was Iraqi material in London, W will tell Tony to not let it be known.

  I read a detail somewhere about one of those ammo depots in Iraq blowing up some years ago. The explosion was heard hundreds of miles away.

  by DrReason on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:04:51 AM PDT

  •  We're not a colony yet, you know!

    Unfortunately, since Tony has been unable to staunch leaks from GCHQ, his own Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, the MoD and the Attorney General's Office, it's unlikely that he'd have much success in capping the flow of information from  a closely-scrutinised and ongoing criminal investigation, where the facts will emerge, drip by drip, over the passage of time.

    It's been noticeable that during press conferences with the police, journalists have continuously asked this question - still without a specific answer as far as I can tell. I would guess that the precise nature of the explosives will be disclosed sooner or later - and if there is a link to Iraq, well that will be damning in and of itself.

    Whilst Bush may have some influence over Blair, it does not extend down into the Whitehall Bureaucracy ( who despise him ) and amongst the largely honest police investigators who need to keep the public onside in what will, by its nature, be a long investigation.

    by londanium on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:23:34 AM PDT

    •  Not a colony...

      ... just another state.

      :O)

      Here in Boston there's something called the Freedom Trail, about some of the events leading up to the revolution (it was all about money, of course, not freedom). On one tour, we had a fantastic guide who told the anecdote that in 1976, Queen Elizabeth stood at the balcony of the Old State House here and said, "No hard feelings."

      Good to hear about the leaks and honesty. Thanks for helping to rescue us (Downing Street etc.). With Canada on our side, you just might succeed.

      Another related thing about Boston: the Democratic National Convention was here, and they decided to leave up the cameras they had installed. I saw a still of one of the London bombers, and I must say I see the utility. I understand that they're controversial.

      by DrReason on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 12:54:07 PM PDT

•  A couple of days ago

  I had a diary up on Tues on a similar theme:
  London bombs of military grade
  There was some useful information in comments (thanks everyone!)

  This is important; we need to keep al Qaqaa in mind. If only 1% of the stockpile was stolen, there is 3.5 tonnes of RMX/HMX/PETN in the wild. And the London bombers only used 40lbs = 1/50 of a tonne!
  

  by Nicholas Phillips on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:10:02 AM PDT

•  Probably not.

  Latest reports are that the explosives were nto military grade RDX, thus making Iraq an unlikely source (which it was in any case, insurgents are using those explosives, not shipping them to London).

  by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 09:13:40 AM PDT