Mumbai serial blasts linked to Varanasi, Delhi
Investigators probing the triple blasts in Mumbai on July 13 have narrowed down the likely perpetrators to terror outfit Indian Mujahideen. This is after investigators concluded that the bombs used in Mumbai were similar to those that went off in Varanasi last December and outside the Delhi high court
this May.“Ammonium nitrate along with fuel oil was used in the previous blasts and in both cases the bombs were small and kept in tiffin carriers
, which allowed better portability,” said an officer on condition of anonymity.http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mumbai-se ... 22760.aspx
Ok, there is a contradiction here. From the Varanasi blasts thread, a TOI article claimed:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 169065.cms
VARANASI: The forensic laboratories have confirmed the use of RDX in the December 7 blast on Old Dasaswamedh Ghat . However, unlike previous blasts, the terrorists have not mixed ammonium nitrate in the bomb.
According to sources, reports from forensic laboratories, including Forensic Science Institute of Gujarat , were received recently. They revealed the use of RDX in the bomb that was packed in a plastic lunch box. However, the other chemicals used with the RDX could not be confirmed. In the previous blasts, the terrorists had mixed ammonium nitrate with the RDX. But, in this bomb, ammonium nitrate had not been used, say reports.
So, was NH4NO3 used in the Varanasi bomb or was it only RDX? If it was not used, what is the credibility of the HT report, which claims a "similarity" to the Mumbai blasts on the basis of the bombs containing NH4NO3-fuel oil mixture?
These are pretty categorical statements in both places, and I think we do ourselves a disservice if we just ascribe the contradiction to "DDM-itis as usual."
Another instance where we have seen two completely contradictory streams of evidence: the Samjhauta Blasts. US intelligence agencies confirmed that the blasts had been carried out by an LeT operative, Arif Qasmani. Congress GOI, however, has gone out of its way to link the Samjhauta blasts to "Hindu terrorist" groups, claiming that RDX from Indian Army stock was supplied (via Colonel Purohit) to make the bombs. The trial of Purohit and his alleged co-conspirators, of course, has proved farcical. No connection to any IA RDX has been established.
So just a thought experiment here. If you were a Mainovadi like Digvijay Singh, and IF you wanted to blame blasts orchestrated by ISI/D-Company on "Hindu terrorists" instead, what would you do?You would not admit the use of RDX.
If RDX is admitted then some story has to be cooked up in order to cover up the involvement of Pakistan/ISI/LeT/D-Company. For example, the establishment of RDX in the Samjhauta Blast required the fabrication of "Colonel Purohit supplied RDX from Indian Army stock" ... an allegation that obviously stands on non-existent evidence.
Therefore, it is far better for you to simply deny that RDX is involved at all, and suppress reports which indicate the use of RDX in the devices. RDX, after all, means some "sophisticated enemy"... ISI and linked groups. You can't keep blaming IA officers all the time. So you simply claim (whatever the actual forensic evidence) that the bombs were NH4NO3 and fuel oil onlee.
I have learned from reading this thread that even NH4NO3 devices need a charge of RDX or some similar substance to set them off, but that may be lost on the general public. In the minds of aam janata, it may be fair to assume that RDX="sophisticated (foreign-linked) terrorist organization", but NH4NO3/fuel-oil = "homegrown terrorists", either dehaati IM types or "Hindu terrorists" depending on your predilections.
What evidence is there for the above speculation? None. But it is very curious, even Orwellian, to see reportage on the Varanasi blasts being altered so completely: from "RDX only without any NH4NO3" (TOI, Dec 26 2010) to "NH4NO3 plus fuel oil onlee" (HT, July 18 2011.)
DDM-itis? Or disinformation with an agenda?