London Bomb Ingredients and Linking a Bomber to British Intelligence

A London Times article starts out saying: "Explosives match al-Qaeda blueprint for bombmaking" and says how the manufacturing of the bombs matches Al Qaeda designs.

But then they end the article with this kicker:

The bombs detonated in the Underground and on the bus appear to have been a carefully balanced mix of commercially available materials and military-style ingredients. The evidence of this explosive primer in the four London bombs indicates for the first time that the ingredients were acquired in this country and not brought in from abroad.

Interestingly, the French have annoyed the British by spilling the beans that the bombs had military ingredients, criticizing the Iraq war and releasing other key info:

Britain's era of good will with Europe lasted 48 hours — all because of the French. After the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, Scotland Yard brought together law enforcement and intelligence officials from two dozen European countries and the United States, sharing crucial intelligence and pleading for help in tracking down the bombers. But the continentwide spirit of cooperation was shattered when Christophe Chaboud, France's new antiterrorism coordinator, broke the cardinal rule of the club. He leaked. In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde that appeared on newsstands on July 11 — two days after the exceptionally open briefing — Chaboud announced that he knew ''the nature of the explosives'' used in the London bombings. It ''appears to be military, which is very worrisome,'' he said, adding: ''We're more used to cells making homemade explosives from chemical substances.''

But Chaboud did not stop with his assessment of the explosives and their origins, which, it turned out, were wrong. He plunged into politics, saying Europe was a more dangerous place because of the war in Iraq. ''The war in Iraq has revived the logic of total conflict against the West,'' he declared, without adding the obvious: that Britain supported the war and France did not. The British reacted with fury, sending communiqués to a number of European friends that expressed deep disappointment that the bonds of trust had been broken, according to two European officials who received the missives. So poisonous is the atmosphere that the talk in European intelligence circles is that the British feel that the French may have leaked bad information on purpose. ''They believe they released this incorrect information deliberately,'' said the head of a European intelligence agency. The result, he added, is ''there's not much good will left between them.''

It seems to me as though Chaboud WAS correct, both about the bombs and about the war.

Then get this:

After an emergency EU summit meeting of justice and interior ministers in Brussels on Wednesday, the French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, suggested that part of the cell responsible for the London terror attacks had been arrested in the past. The remarks prompted an immediate response from the British home secretary, Charles Clarke, who had called the meeting. ''I've heard Sarkozy's remarks to the press, and there is absolutely no foundation in them,''

Oh really, Mr. Clarke? Have you seen this story:

MI5 said bomber was not a threat. One of the London bombers was investigated by MI5 last year but was deemed not to be a threat, it has been revealed. Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, was subject to a routine assessment by the security service because of an indirect connection to an alleged terror plot.

Hmmm, one of the bombers was investigated by an intelligence service but was then ignored. Where have I heard that before? Where? Where? Where?

And just how likely IS it that these intelligence agencies dropped the ball on these people and had NO IDEA what these terrorists were up to?