# America’s New Bomb Threat



## cupper (14 Jul 2012)

Could make for an interesting commute in the future.

*America’s New Bomb Threat*

Some of the deadliest weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan—improvised explosive devices, or IEDs—are heading to U.S. shores, warns a top general. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/13/america-s-new-bomb-threat.html



> According to Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, head of the military’s Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, some of the same terrorists who amassed the know-how on building IEDs are setting their sites on the U.S.
> 
> “Today’s IEDs are relatively simple, low-tech devices, which routinely use command wire, pressure plates, or radio-controlled triggers,” Barbero wrote in written testimony released Thursday ahead of a closed hearing of a subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee. “Many readily available components such as cellphones, agricultural fertilizers and simple electronic transmitters and receivers have legitimate commercial uses, but are easily and increasingly adapted for illicit purposes in manufacturing IEDs.”
> 
> ...


----------



## GnyHwy (14 Jul 2012)

Fortunately, our citizens won't remain quiet to avoid persecution.  Crappy Tire or Walmart will hand out free baseball bats, and I am willing to give free lessons.

An oldy, but a goody! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVcW-dj26_o


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jul 2012)

This is nothing new. The means has always been here.

ANFO, the Anarchist Cookbook, etc.

People have been making those explosives here for years.

Most, just haven't been employing them in a terrorist way.


----------



## GnyHwy (14 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This is nothing new. The means has always been here.



True, but we have been giving the small guy a break.  Thank goodness they are small... very small.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jul 2012)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> True, but we have been giving the small guy a break.  Thank goodness they are small... very small.



Tim McVeigh? 

Not so much.


----------



## cupper (14 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Tim McVeigh?
> 
> Not so much.



Not sure if he falls in the small guy category.

But he is an example of what can go wrong.


----------



## jeffb (14 Jul 2012)

An IED is just a tool just like a gun is a tool. There is no threat anywhere from IED's on their own. Threats come from people or groups that are willing to employ IED's. I don't really see how there is anything new in this story. There have been pipe bomb attacks by home grown terrorists before and Oklahoma City.


----------



## cupper (14 Jul 2012)

I think what is new is that they are talking about it as a potential threat in the homeland. Up until now, complacency has been the standard mood, because (other than Oklahoma which was a lot more than an IED and 9/11) there haven't been any really significant successful incidents. We've had two plots that were well under way, or failed in execution, and many more that were caught early in the planning (or were lead by government plants inside).

When the average American has the attention span of a fish, most of those preempted attacks disappear from the public psyche within the 24 hour news cycle, or when the next celebrity runs afoul of the law, whichever comes first.


----------



## jeffb (14 Jul 2012)

Oh I get it. The point I am making is the IED's do not pose any threat to anyone unless they are being used by a group against the "homeland". 

Having read the article I'm not really sure what he is trying to get at other then people may use IED's against us. Also, I don't see how this is a new threat. There was the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Toronto 16 or whatever they were called, etc. Just because these IED's were discovered before they were activated does not mean they weren't IED's. Still nothing new here in my view. 

Bottom line for me, either the story should be "terrorist activity rise likely" or something to that point. Focusing on the means of destruction is the wrong way of going about this. We don't define conventional enemies and our strategies based around their weapons so why would we do so with unconventional threats. 

War is about people, not technology or tools. We will never defeat IED's, we MAY be able to defeat the people that would wield them.


----------



## Sythen (14 Jul 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Oh I get it. The point I am making is the IED's do not pose any threat to anyone unless they are being used by a group against the "homeland".



All those naturally occuring IED's, or the ones built by collectors or used for sport are fine.  :sarcasm:

IED's are made for only one purpose.



> Having read the article I'm not really sure what he is trying to get at other then people may use IED's against us.



According to the article, they are trying to train "home grown" terrorists in their construction and use. If this is a credible threat, starting to educate the populace early is better than late.. For instance, "If you see some guys digging on the road, don't just turn a blind eye." is an example.



> War is about people, not technology or tools. We will never defeat IED's, we MAY be able to defeat the people that would wield them.



Since its unlikely the "people" will take out billboards or carry neon signs, we need to try to catch them before they act. The more people who are on the look out, the better. As I said, educate people what to watch for.


----------

