Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 18, 2019

Security Breach At U.S. Embassies In Tunisia And Kuwait Almost Caused A Disaster

by L. W.

A U.S. security intelligence officer at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait said: "Kuwaiti authorities discovered 200 gram of C4 high explosive packed in a hole inside a book in a rucksack belonging to a U.S. Marine, minutes before the bag was to be placed on a U.S. civilian carrier flight with destination the U.S.  The airline and passengers were spared a real catastrophe."  This took place several days ago but US authorities declined to reveal the breach in security at two U.S. embassies, one in Tunisia and the other in Kuwait.

According to the source, who requested anonymity, an "investigation by U.S. intelligence personnel was carried out to find out the origins of the explosive and the responsibility of the soldier involved."

"The soldier, on duty in Tunisia, was supposed to be posted to a U.S. base in Kuwait. His belongings were sent from the U.S. embassy in Tunisia, following the usual inspection, to the embassy in Kuwait. On the same day that his luggage was sent to Kuwait, he was asked to depart from Tunisia to the U.S. because the post in Kuwait was no longer available. By the time the transfer of the U.S. soldier to Kuwait was revoked his belongings were already in Kuwait and certainly had already been inspected by U.S. personnel", said the source.

When the US soldier’s posting was revoked, his belongings were supposed to follow back home. The U.S. embassy in Kuwait contacted a contracted private company to send the package to the U.S. on board of an American airline. A rapid inspection was carried out by the U.S. carrier during which the content was cleared for shipment.

The source confirmed that the belongings of the U.S. soldier were sealed in Tunisia and sent to Kuwait. The seal remained and the luggage was delivered as such to the contracted carrier who accepted it, among other goods, for shipping to the Kuwait airport on a scheduled day.

"At the airport, Kuwaiti security officers were doing their routine check for explosives when a bag set the monitor’s red-light beeping, signaling suspicious content.  Personnel from the U.S. embassy were called upon and asked to open the package. After meticulous inspection, 200 gram of highly explosive material, C4, were found encased in a book", said the source.

The source revealed that the soldier is not a Muslim. An interrogation carried out by U.S. authorities determined that the soldier was apparently not aware of the content of his package. The source refused to deliver further information about the investigation but said the breach is very serious and could have ended in disaster had the explosive been triggered.

No further information was disclosed. However, the source confirmed that 200 gram of C4 are enough to blow up an entire airplane in the air with all its passengers. According to the source, the US embassies in Tunisia and Kuwait have taken further security measures following this incident.

Note by b:

L.W., the writer of the above, is a person I trust. S/he has the connections and sources needed for such a story. It is however difficult to verify.

Assuming that it is correct, who might be the most likely culprit?

Posted by b on April 18, 2019 at 20:14 UTC | Permalink


Sounds like the situation could be as simple as the soldier wishing to smuggle the explosives possible for sale or general mischief rather than intending on taking down an airliner. From what I know, C4 is also a very stable product, and without a detonator, the C4 would likely be fine and not detonate.

Posted by: Anon | Apr 18 2019 20:25 utc | 1

Sounds like the nutter who tried to carry 4 gallons of petrol + lighters into St Patrick's cathedral. People are like that these days. Anon's attempts to excuse @1 are not very convincing.

Posted by: Laguerre | Apr 18 2019 20:44 utc | 2

When a country befriend with terrorists, that is what happens, the risk is very high for the US as a whole, too much exposure to terrorists, many are angry with betrayals and policy shifts. I do not buy, though, the possibility of explosion, without the detonator anyway, but the security breach is clear and the risk of disaster is high.
Anyone recall what happened with the bomb in the Russian airliner out of Egypt ? The terrorists managed to find a security whole and took advantage of it, I see the same MO here.

Posted by: Canthama | Apr 18 2019 20:45 utc | 3

I'll agree with Canthama. But as noted @1, the explosive's useless without some means to detonate.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 18 2019 20:52 utc | 4

Just say, "training exercise".

Speaking of Tunisia, there were bomb parts being mailed in the other direction - from the US to the embassy in Tunisia.
The bomb parts were discovered by accident and so the best response was ... "nothing to see here, folks, just a training exercise".


Often wondered what the planned abort scenario was for 9/11 .

If the CIA etal had indeed wired the towers with explosives
how would they go about deinstalling said explosives if there
had been a major muck up and the plans for 9/11 were called off or delayed?

"Training exercises" is a good cover.

When Mossad was caught
by an alert bystander planting a bomb under a car in Tel Aviv, it was
later announced that it had all been a "training exercise gone awry".

When bomb parts (not yet assembled) mailed to the US embassy
in Tunisia were discovered by Fedex workers at Charles de Gaulle
airport the ready explanation guessed it..."training
exercise gone awry".

You are probably aware that there were training exercises held
in New York just before 9/11.

"September 8, 2001: Bioterrorism Exercise Is Held at a New York Airport

A training exercise is held at New York’s La Guardia Airport, based around the scenario of a terrorist attack with a biological weapon"

And, you probably recall that active anthrax was being shipped,
although "no one was at fault", for years all over the place.
That is, anthrax created by the Pentagon that was "believed to be inactive" was actually live anthrax
and being shipped around the world. But no one was at fault.

Thus, if someone decided to pull the plug on 9/11 and had to remove
the explosives from the towers they could have declared
"training exercise has gone awry". The Pentagon could merely declare that
they had held an adjunct exercise in the towers and what the biological terror
exercise thought was inactive anthrax was actually live and the
towers would need to be evacuated while decontamination took place.

That could have been the ready made abort-scenario to 9/11 .

Posted by: librul | Apr 18 2019 20:54 utc | 5

US Marines are never referred to as "soldiers," but always as "marines." That may seem like a minor point to you and me, but I can assure you, it is not a minor point to present and former members of the USMC.

Posted by: Bill H | Apr 18 2019 20:55 utc | 6

Assuming that it is correct, who might be the most likely culprit?

Making that assumption, I want to focus on this part:

The U.S. embassy in Kuwait contacted a contracted private company to send the package to the U.S. on board of an American airline.

Government is evil. Therefore hiring enough vetted US citizens to run an embassy is to be avoided if a Private Company can be paid to do the same job. It's been done in the Military. NASA. National Intelligence has been "privatized". (think Edward Snowden)

What shocked me most from the recent story here about Torturer Gina Haspel lying to Trump wasn't that she did it. The woman has no scruples at all, and her misbehavior is hardly a surprise. The NYT piece was just another story about an ignorant old man who can be easily managed. No, here is the part which jumped out at me.

"Houseflies buzzing around the Oval Office were drawing his attention, and ire.

After reading that I'd be surprised if there is a competent core of White House GOVERNMENT workers remaining there. Nobody to manage the flying vermin. It took the director of the CIA to send over some flypaper!

I doubt if the Trumpies could organize a 1-float parade, so the lax security could be almost anywhere in the chain of events. But my present vote is on a Private Company. It might be the transport company. If they don't have junior staffers in the Embassy to run simple missions like delivering a package, they probably don't have an in-house cleaning staff, either. So they may hire some locals to come in and mop and sweep the joint. Inexpensive Outsiders.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 18 2019 21:09 utc | 7

ditto Canthama's comment... anything is possible when you sleep with terrorists..

Posted by: james | Apr 18 2019 21:22 utc | 8

The culprit is most likely the same of always, US and Israel intelligence, acting directly or through contractors...

As the new panarabic front is being built, a great terrorist event against the US is needed to justify another intervention in the Middle East so as to counter it.

Nor it would be very difficult to imagine that just after naming the IRGC as terrorist organization, they will be most probably to blame....Sounds like the perfect alibi to unleash the WoT on Iran...

Posted by: Sasha | Apr 18 2019 21:42 utc | 9

Security check failure from beginning to final loading. Thankfully someone passed a sniffer over the bag at the point of loading. Similar security failure of the highest order in Australia reported in Sydney Morning Herald:

Maybe it was a revenge prank against the soldier or maybe it was a 'test' to see if there were holes in the security channel. My guess is that all embassies and usa travel channels for their soldiers were issued with C4 sniffers but without the LIon batteries (as they are a fire risk on planes) so they chuck the sniffer into the 'stupid rigmarole' locker.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Apr 18 2019 22:05 utc | 10

Another reason to carry on a great terrorist attack would be to add justification to an already shaky US project of Arab NATO, which the US deems complementary to its "Deal of the Cnetury", after Egypt refusal to participate..

Just as the United States is about to unveil its "Deal of the Century" for the Middle East, Egypt has just announced - on April 14, 2019 - that it will not participate in the Middle East Strategic Alliance, the «Strategic Alliance of the Middle East», also called the «Arab NATO». Of course, the withdrawal from Egypt - the country with the largest army in the Arab world - puts the whole project in serious danger.

The fact is that Egypt considers that it does not have any common strategic objective with the other States that could form that alliance, nor does it consider that there are reasons that justify the Egyptian army being placed under the orders of Saudi Arabia.

The participation of Qatar and the Sultanate of Oman was already obviously unlikely.(...)

Posted by: Sasha | Apr 18 2019 22:13 utc | 11

Bill H | Apr 18, 2019 4:55:55 PM | 6

Well I refer to 'marines' as war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity. For a single word alternative maybe 'belsens' or 'auschwitzers'

It might be the US language norm to use 'marines' but that does not apply to every other country I know of. The source for this story most likely will be a non USA person. They can't be prosecuted by the disgraceful US legal system unless their name is Assange.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Apr 18 2019 22:15 utc | 12

The book's title?

Posted by: bjd | Apr 18 2019 22:35 utc | 13

The stuff is absolutely harmless without a Detonator:
If the plane were to crash, it is possible there would be a "sympathy detonation", but that chance is slight, to say the least. It would require a certain combustion that involved "...supersonic exothermic front accelerating through a medium that eventually drives a shock front propagating directly in front of it" for whatever wikipedia is worth, but bottom line is that the detonator is everything...

Posted by: Dan | Apr 18 2019 22:39 utc | 14

I would love to know what aircraft type was going to be loaded with this bag...

Posted by: Masher1 | Apr 18 2019 23:21 utc | 15

Sissi is backing the 2nd-man-in w\ suggests Sudan to be a Saudi, Israeli sponsored regime change?
History: military disposed 30 year ruler Omar Al Basshir, formed a transition Military council (TMO)) and appointed Awad Ahmed Ibn Auf <=but after 1 day Auf stepped down in favor of very unpopular Awad Fallah al Burhan ; entire of population of Sudan is upset.. They want a civilian government and they want to decide who should be their leader.
looks like nothing until realize Sissi (in Egypt) is backing Auf So what is going on?

interesting how this coincides with similar problems in Libya? so who can shed some light.. ? has wwIII started?

Posted by: snake | Apr 18 2019 23:35 utc | 16

The simple explanation is the the explosives were supposed to end up in Kuwait where our soldier friend would use them for whatever murderous or false flag mischief his owners commanded. The luggage wasn't supposed to be checked by the plebs in Kuwait but due to the mission being cancelled the goods ended up in their hands. The conduit from Tunisia to Kuwait was primed to let the cargo through but there was not enough time to set up the transit from Kuwait to the USA. Hence the discovery by the wrong people.

Posted by: corkie | Apr 18 2019 23:38 utc | 17

Actually - Slight correction. It is more likely the lads in Kuwait didn't know the goods had to have "special handling". No doubt there are heads on the block as we write for this administrative foul up. Also known as a SNAFU, to use the military term.

Posted by: corkie | Apr 18 2019 23:47 utc | 18

I spent four years as an active-duty enlisted man in the U.S. Air Force, and after that spent many years in the U.S. Naval Reserve, retiring at the rank of lieutenant commander, and I was unaware that a Marine should not be referred to as a "soldier". So knowledge of this rule is likely to be far from universal even in the U.S. military.

Posted by: lysias | Apr 19 2019 0:00 utc | 19

US embassy employees are obviously improving their procedures for carrying potentially explosive material but not enough. Why, 'twas only last month that a US embassy staffer was detained at an airport in Moscow, about to board a flight for New York, for having a mortar shell in his bag.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 19 2019 0:04 utc | 20

Corkie @ 18: Even the Saudis know you should use "diplomatic bag" labels on luggage when carrying suspicious things like chainsaws, machetes and someone's head in a jar filled with preservative chemicals.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 19 2019 0:10 utc | 21

Anon @1: Yes, C4 is one of the most stable explosives currently in use, you can throw it, hit it, drop it, shoot it, even set fire to it and it will not detonate, unless you run a electric current through it (even a tiny current like from a watch battery can set it off). Without a detonator the C4 would be almost harmless (there's a tiny, tiny chance a static electric spark could detonate it if the C4 wasn't property prepared for transit). So, assuming there wasn't a detonator with the C4, I would lean to this C4 being smuggled to somewhere to be sold or used in an assassination attempt, rather than an attempt to bring down an airplane.

Posted by: Kadath | Apr 19 2019 0:37 utc | 22

Kadath #22

Spark or current? Current can exist without a spark.

Just wondering.

Posted by: johnT | Apr 19 2019 1:11 utc | 23

In the Navy, Marines are usually referred to as "Jarheads."

Antoinetta III

Posted by: Antoinetta III | Apr 19 2019 1:31 utc | 24

@16 curious as well.. maybe a b sitrep on Sudan?

Posted by: Lozoon | Apr 19 2019 2:11 utc | 25

Handle typo..

Posted by: Lozion | Apr 19 2019 2:12 utc | 26

I kind of agree wth #1(i admit i havent read all the comments)
If he didnt armit with a detonator the substance itself is harmless for the f-ing plane and from the piece we don't know that. That sad it being in a book kinda points to nefarious ends.

Why did he send it to Kuwait? If he didnt someone who had access to his unsealed belongings, either en route to kuwait (airport etc) or someone who did that at whereeve it was delivered for pickup by x. Also, why was the post not anymore available??!? To this particular person?

Posted by: Mac Chiavelli | Apr 19 2019 2:13 utc | 27

Re 23 JohnT. The electric current from the detonator to set-off the C4 runs for only a few nanoseconds, so it's basically a spark. However, while the initial current is fairly weak (I think it's only like 0.25 amp) it's "generally" higher than what you could get from most static electric shocks. So the static electric charge you would build up from walking on a carpet, "probably" wouldn't set it off even if you build up a large charge and immediately handled the C4 (although make sure the detonator isn't in the C4 yet or the static charge could accidentally set off the detonator which would in turn set off the C4). Anyhow, I wouldn't recommend walking over a carpet and handling C4 and there are a bunch of safety procedures for handling C4 solely to reduce the likelihood of building up a static charge while handling the C4.

Issues with random electrical jolts aside, what makes C4 so wonderful and "safe" (from the point of view of the military) isn't that C4 is tge powerful explosive on the market (an equivalent amount of TNT is more powerful, ounce per ounce than C4). Rather it's that most chemical explosives become unstable over time, the chemicals breakdown into new compounds, they react or corrode with the container housing, the chemical mixture can separate and form sedimentary layers if stored to long, high or low temperatures can cause the mixture to become unequally distributed (causing reliabilities issues when used). C4 does none of those things, you can store it for years, even decades and the worst that can happen is that that it won't work anymore, C4 simply won't form some horribly unstable new compound that makes even moving it dangerous (TNT for example, when it gets old will start sweating droplets of nitroglycerin, like a lemon meringue pie, that will explode if you slightly agitate them). This makes moving and storing C4 much, much easier and safer than other explosives. This is also why C4 is so closely regulated by world governments (much more so than TNT, which even farmers can legally buy), because these traits that make it so useful for the military also make it attractive to Terrorists.

Posted by: Kadath | Apr 19 2019 2:31 utc | 28

Jen @ 21


Posted by: once and future | Apr 19 2019 4:51 utc | 29

Mythbusters had some fun with C4 a few years ago by attempting to detonate it by whacking it and setting fire to it. It didn't explode.
If the 200grams of C4 wasn't fitted with a detonator, a battery and an initiator (timer, pressure sensor) then it wasn't a bomb. Had it been a bomb, one suspects that the report have described it as a bomb.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 19 2019 5:00 utc | 30

His belongings were sent from the U.S. embassy in Tunisia, following the usual inspection, to the embassy in Kuwait.

“The usual inspection” meaning what, exactly? A cursory glance?

By the time the transfer of the U.S. soldier to Kuwait was revoked his belongings were already in Kuwait and certainly had already been inspected by U.S. personnel.

The “certainly” bit is a mere assumption on the part of L.W.’s source.

A rapid inspection was carried out by the U.S. carrier during which the content was cleared for shipment.

A “rapid inspection” as in “no inspection at all”.

The source confirmed that the belongings of the U.S. soldier were sealed in Tunisia and sent to Kuwait. The seal remained and the luggage was delivered as such to the contracted carrier who accepted it, among other goods, for shipping to the Kuwait airport on a scheduled day.

This confirms what I’ve written above. The belongings, including the book, were sealed in Tunisia and no “inspections” were ever carried out.

After meticulous inspection, 200 gram of highly explosive material, C4, were found encased in a book.

The first actual inspection of the soldier’s belongings. The one he didn’t plan for as he didn’t know his transfer to Kuwait would be cancelled.

The source revealed that the soldier is not a Muslim.

What does that have to do with anything? Does “not being a Muslim” automatically clear him from any suspicion?

An interrogation carried out by U.S. authorities determined that the soldier was apparently not aware of the content of his package.

You can’t put “determined” and “apparently” in the same sentence. It’s either a determination, or a supposition. Can’t be both. Also, how can an “interrogation” possibly “determine” anything? I guess, this is just some clumsy writing, and what L.W. really meant to say was that the soldier had told the authorities he “had nothing to do with it”. Which doesn’t really mean anything, as people, you know, are known to lie when caught committing a crime.

Assuming that it is correct, who might be the most likely culprit?

The most likely culprit is the soldier himself. An important missing detail is whether the book belonged to him. If it did, then it was him (with 99% certainty).

A more important question is: who asked him to do that? A group of marines have been carrying out all kinds of dirty, illegal assignments for the unauthorized (illegal) Bush-Moreau group since at least the early 80s (see Seymour Hersh’s recent article “The Vice President’s Men”). Same thing could be happening now, the soldier being ordered by his secret handlers to pass on C4 to someone in Kuwait.

Posted by: S | Apr 19 2019 5:08 utc | 31


Water soldiers?

Posted by: Some Random Passer-by | Apr 19 2019 6:50 utc | 32

@b: Given the context, it’s pretty clear who L.W. is. If L.W. wants to preserve L.W.’s anonymity, L.W. better use a single letter as L.W.’s pen name in the future.

Posted by: S | Apr 19 2019 6:58 utc | 33

The PC answer is: "This has nothing to do with Islam and the perpetrator has mental issues."

Posted by: DidierF | Apr 19 2019 7:16 utc | 34

The simple explanation is the the explosives were supposed to end up in Kuwait
Posted by: corkie | Apr 18, 2019 7:38:02 PM | 17

Another possibility - in my view significantly more likely - is that the originally intended destination for the explosive was the US, and that the Soldier-Mule was the patsy. I.e. the putative posting to Kuwait AND its annulment were set up to enable means for the bag to go through special handling channels that would normally get only token inspection. The text from LW confirms that inspection was indeed utterly token at almost every step, and the alertness of the Kuwaitis was probably unanticipated because they were out of the loop. One critical stage in the transfer - that an explosive detector would be in the path and switched on - was not adequately planned for by the plotters.

The aim would most likely be to get undocumented C4 into the US, as whoever planned this operation might well have access to documented C4 in the US anyway. That might well signal planned false flag use, so that the false flag can be more easily be blamed on someone else. A putative culprit might be some minor faction in the Deep State.

One possible target for the false flag might be Russia/Iran/Hezbolla/Syria/China/Venezuela etc ... but in my view this has the wiff of having a somewhat smaller faction behind it, such as NAZIs/white supremacists. What immediately comes to mind was the incident a couple of years ago where a German NAZI sympethising member of the Bundeswehr smuggles weapons and(?) explosives into a stach hidden in a toilet in an Austrian airport for a planned terrorist incident. I haven't followed it/read anything about it recently, but a large network of NAZI sympethising supremacists was unearthed inside and throughout the Bundeswehr in the course of the investigation. Linked is the well established fact that the NAZI movement have extremely high level and strong infiltration in the German BND, police, judiciary, Ministry of Interior, etc - for example one time when a court ordered the Interior Ministry to hand over documents about NAZI activities in Germany, the Interior Ministry illegally shredded millions of documents rather than hand them over.

In my opinion, it would be a wise move by Russia to start as quickly as possible a covert collaboration with countries around the world - including relatively minor US allies - to ensure that ALL US embassy incidental traffic, such as the bag in this case, get an effective check for explosives, fire hazards, chemical weapons, bio weapons and drugs, despite the official channels giving only token inspection. The recent surge in incidents (or perhaps only the recent exposure of longstandingly regular incidents??) involving US soldiers and weapons/explosives might be read as an indication of a widespread threat.

Posted by: BM | Apr 19 2019 8:15 utc | 35

Why anyone in his right mind would want to go through all this hassle for smuggling/delivering/ or whatever of 200 g of C-4 is beyond me. This with an explosive formulation that has 'taggant' written all over it?

@ Kadath | Apr 18, 2019 10:31:10 PM | 28
*The electric current from the detonator to set-off the C4 runs for only a few nanoseconds...*
So, you're talking high-end EFIs? I strongly doubt this being the case.

*... TNT is more powerful...*
Incorrect. Specific energy and data from various tests (lead block, ballistic mortar, det. calorimetry etc.) tell a different story. C-4 is 90% RDX + 10% additives, RDX is ~1.6*TNT blast energy-wise. While the additives indeed do consume a significant amount of available energy overall output is superior to TNT.

*TNT for example, when it gets old will start sweating droplets of nitroglycerin...*
Nope, an old myth based on ignorance. An apple won't transform in to a pear just because it is aging.
Sweating predominantly stems from impurities in low-quality batches, such as mono-nitro-toluenes, or originates from additives such as ammonium nitrate. A nitro-benzene derivative simply can not transform in to a polyol nitrate ester.

Posted by: Hmpf | Apr 19 2019 8:52 utc | 36

Hmpf says:

Why anyone in his right mind would want to go through all this hassle for smuggling/delivering/ or whatever of 200 g of C-4 is beyond me

yeah, really...probably just another disenchanted grunt with some vague idea of blowing the lid off the whole kit and caboodle.

Posted by: john | Apr 19 2019 9:04 utc | 37

Testing security for a future op is my guess.

Posted by: Pft | Apr 19 2019 9:11 utc | 38

more on the strange happenings in Libya, Sudan, Golan and surrounds somehow these seem coordinated?

see also @16leader.

Posted by: snake | Apr 19 2019 9:50 utc | 39

Why is Russia supporting Saudi-UAE nexus in Libya and Sudan?

Posted by: AG17 | Apr 19 2019 10:08 utc | 40

let me guess , the security company hired is the same one handling security on israeli airlines and have access to many western airports ? that same dudes wouldnt have much trouble in tunisia

Posted by: milomilo | Apr 19 2019 11:08 utc | 41

S @33


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 19 2019 11:22 utc | 42


@5 I had listed some curious incidences of "training exercises" including a bioterrorism training exercise that happened in New York three
days before 9/11.

I am adding to my own personal notes another bioterrorism training exercise that happened just prior to the highly suspicious Skripal poisoning.


Add to the list, "Toxic Dagger", a biological/chemical training exercise held
just prior to the Skripal poisoning. Toxic Dagger is the largest annual British army
biological/chemical training exercise.

"Completing the training and exercising against these scenarios provides
a challenging programme for the Royal Marines to demonstrate their proficiency in
the methods to detect, assess and mitigate a CBRN threat."

The first person to discover the Skripals was the Chief Nursing Officer of the
British Army (whose experience includes deployment to Sierre Leone to help
fight Ebola).
"An experienced officer, highly connected, who is also known for handling highly
infectious patients?"

The nurse claimed later that it was actually her daughter that was with her
that detected and assessed the Skripal scenario.

The daughter was 16 at the time and we presume the Lifesaver Award she
received would be a feather in her cap useful for her imminent application
for admission to a university. Wonder if Lori Loughlin had thought of
using such an angle?

Posted by: librul | Apr 19 2019 13:01 utc | 43

Wasnt the Boston bombing an exercise?

Posted by: Trolleybus | Apr 19 2019 13:35 utc | 44

Someone most likely wanted to get the guy into trouble for the fun of it and for any silly reason (including supposedly "serious" stuff like sex or pride). Anyone who has ever been in any armed forces knows this is beyond all else most likely by far and the next most likely thing is simply someone having or planning to have some dumb and mostly harmless fun by helping themselves to some goodies. The guy might even be addicted to having some C4 around because people (and the human psyche) are strange like that.

For anyone who has no clue: any military below the surface layer of "morale" and "shiny nonsense" is pure kindergarten and "toys" go astray all over the place. In comparison herding cats is heaven. I've only had my inside view of European NATO forces and never personally had anything to do with the US military (known to be crappier than most and preoccupied with aggravating everyone and killing their allies) and I'm sure they'll deny it until they're red in the face but its still true.

Of course no one is supposed to tell people that :D

For all other purposes there are better ways of getting explosives where you "need" it. If the person wanted it in the US he would simply have waited until being in the US.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Apr 19 2019 14:13 utc | 45

The first time the C4 is s detected is during routine s curity scan by Kuwaiti authorities. Who says they did ordid not plant it there?

Posted by: Stumpy | Apr 19 2019 14:20 utc | 46

Btw on the Skripal thing does that nurse also run over to every "spice" zombie she sees in public? Anyone in a puddle of their own partly digested booze? Does she go hunting under bridges for heroin addicts and glue sniffers? Does she check on everyone sleeping on a bench or in some doorway? It is England after all.

Weird hobby she's got and with her kid in tow too :P

(Yes I'm being facetious about a bullshit narrative straight out of the 1950ies).

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Apr 19 2019 14:57 utc | 47

@ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 19, 2019 1:00:46 AM | 30

In that case, the most probable scenario was that this marine simply wanted to ship the C4 to the USA in order to do a terrorist attack in American soil, not to take down a plane.

Posted by: vk | Apr 19 2019 15:09 utc | 48

Why was it not discovered at the first airport? Very worrying that it took so long before it was discovered.

Posted by: Ray Visino | Apr 19 2019 22:45 utc | 49

This is definitely NOT my field, so I'll ask those who know better: is the 200-gram quantity mentioned enough to show up on post-"accident" analysis?

Posted by: John Anthony La Pietra | Apr 19 2019 23:22 utc | 50

Stumpy | Apr 19, 2019 10:20:10 AM | 46

When discovered at Kuwait the security scanners called the US diplomatic officer and it was he who then broke the seal and opened the package. The seal had been fixed at the very commencement of the journey. I assume that it is almost impossible for the Kuwaitis to have gotten into the soldier's bag let alone the book itself without destroying the seal.

Can we find out the name of the book?

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Apr 20 2019 9:15 utc | 51

@ John Anthony La Pietra | Apr 19, 2019 7:22:18 PM | 50

I can't tell for sure as I've never come across a forensic post-detonation analysis of a C-4 reaction but I'd expect the answer in most cases would be yes.
It depends on a variety of variables e.g. the actual composition of the explosive (it may contain tiny amounts of undisclosed marker substances that do survive a detonation reaction unaltered exactly for this purpose - forensic proof), charge geometry, critical diameter, initiation strength and geometry, after effects (fuel fires, burning metal) etc..
You can do a search at the library of your local university. 'Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics', 'Combustion and Flame', 'Fire and Materials', 'Journal of Applied Chemistry' are only a few - of many - peer-reviewed publications you may want to start out with.

Posted by: Hmpf | Apr 20 2019 10:10 utc | 52

No US carriers fly from Kuwait except those on military charter.

Posted by: a1 | Apr 23 2019 20:57 utc | 53

The comments to this entry are closed.