Talk:Improvised explosive device/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Graphic Photo

Probably need to have some discussion of whether this pic (insurgent killed by IED) is appropriate. Is it just there for shock value or because people like to see dead insurgents? This article is about IEDs after all, not the trauma produced by explosions. Riddley 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd chime in here. I sometimes spend a fair bit of time following random links across wikipedia, or getting a basic overview of a topic with which I am unfamiliar. In doing so, I find that I occasionally stumble across some fairly graphic images.

Now, if there were an option to disable or enable these, I wouldn't mind so much, since I'd turn it off. However, there isn't, and as such, I for one would like to keep these to a minimum. I find them highly disturbing, making me not read the article, and I find that I am progressively desensitized by them, something which many studies bear out as a common trait in most humans.

I know full well that reality isn't all roses (e.g. I've seen a body crushed to a pulp not 10 feet from me), and I quite understand the realities of combat (e.g. a former friend of mine collected and sorted body parts after an explosive attack, and I've seen the result of being shot in the head).

However, "rubbing our noses in it" is not documentary. It has an agenda, as evidenced by the comments here, namely to "wake up" the general public to the horror of these events. That is not, or at least (IMO) should not be, the goal of an encyclopedia.

Does the article on child abuse show a prepubescent being molested? No. Does it show that same child slicing open their wrist when they grow up? No. Why, then, should this article about IEDs be any more explicit? Why should it need to provoke the viewer to elicit an emotional response? As an encyclopaedia, we should cater to the intellect. Besides, excessively pushing peoples buttons tend to numb them down further, which certainly cannot be congruent with the sentiment expressed in favour of these images.

I for one will be ecstatically happy if I never see (online or in the outside world) another life form get killed, tortured or mutilated. I know what all three look like, in various incarnations, and I'm in no hurry to see it again.

This has nothing to do with "rose colored mirrorshades". It has something to do with wanting to remain sensitive to these horrible events, wanting to continue to care, and wanting to avoid that exact detachment which some people seem to feel necessitates these images.

Feel free to put the image back in as a link with a warning caption. I'd prefer for it to be available, but I'd also very strongly prefer for it to be opt-in.

Zuiram 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I feel perfectly ok with a warning before displaying such images- I would go further and support PG etc. ratings for images. How I would implement the warning is a question, but opt in seems like a good idea to me.

To get at the issue, consider Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day#Wheatfield. It has a highly graphic image but it was greeted not only with no objection but not even a comment for over a month though there have been multiple edits by multiple folks..
.

As you see, it is a photo of a disembowelled soldier with a severed hand nearby. Ask yourself why there is controversy on one and not the other. If the civil war were just a decade in the past, would the reaction be the same?

What I'm trying to get my mind around is: What are the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of graphic images. If it has to do with some gauging whether people feel sufficient emotional distance to consider the images, versus the value of presenting them, it becomes very tricky. EG: Ok to show rows of skulls from the Pol Pot years on en:WP but not on the cambodian WP, etc.

"Agendas" A bit of a catch 22 I am put under here. If I do not provide a rationale, the images are deleted. If a rationale is provided, then an "agenda" is identified and the images are deleted. Let's be careful in labeling something as having an agenda. In particular I have no pro or anti war agenda. A large portion of the images I have uploaded to commons are typical military content photos- aircraft carriers, weapons, and so on. There are well over 400 of them, but I became aware of their peculiar quality- they were remarkably sanitized. There is some additional dimension there that I was not covering and I have noted that. I am interested in providing imagery that is fully representative of this subject matter.

Necessity In communication, we calibrate how much we say on each detail depending on the likelihood that the reader does not fully appreciate some portion of the subject. The horror of child abuse requires little amplification. Compare with this the fascinating articles on military hardware and tactics. Is the emotional impact of the underlying activity so uppermost in people's minds that it requires no further elaboration? Hardly. In fact, quite the opposite. It is a view from the cockpit of a bomber flying at 50,000 feet. Of course you know people are down there, but it is hardly even vaguely something one is aware of. Anyway, I am a contributor to many of these articles, and fully admit my interest and participation in them at that level. I am just questioning the validity of my practice. One can become immersed in the technology of the machines and become completely detached from their meaning- it becomes a form of entertainment. The publishers of military books know it only too well. Well, how entertaining is the video game if the look of pain and anguish is on the face of the person you just shot in your Dungeons game? By not showing the pain and anguish, is it because the game providers are motivated by a concern that this will desensitize their viewers to real pain and and anguish?

Certainly, it is fair to note the shut down factor. But this is a generic objection, is it not? If a person is so inclined, they will choose not to confront ideas that challenge theirs, and they will choose to be entertained over being confronted by that which is less than comfortable for them.

Your thoughts? -Mak 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"War is horror" is a platitude. Video game playing boys understand what the difference between a Chain gun, M60 machine gun, and a Claymore.

• But do they really? A pilot understands there are civilians down below. What form of understanding does he have. We "understand" from the article how an IED works, and how they are employed. But have we gotten closer to their nature, or have we clothed the horror in a grid of technical information so that we can put away in a tidy antiseptic place where it no longer can influence us?

• The mechanism of not "shocking" the public was necessary to maintain the war effort in WWI. Returning veterns often complain bitterly that no one except those who have been "there", understand what it is really like.

• Note that the Nazi concentration camps does not have a single picture of a camp. Instead it has pictures of people. A picture of piles of corpses. I could fairly ask your same questions. Is the article about concentration camps, or the trauma produced by extermination? What are we trying to do- shock people? Ok- let's take the position that such concentration camp shock value pictures really are just pandering to sensationalism. What happens when you show the empty stockades and barbed wire fences, but not what the camps did to people? Granted, it is much more comfortable for folks not to look at the pictures, and it is more difficult to think with the greatest clarity when one is overcome with the grim horror. But which approach gets people closer to the reality of what these things are?

• The world is not so neat, antiseptic, and tidy as that portrayed in Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't see that Wikipedia needs to pander to middle class sensibilities, that greatly prefers the 50,000 foot view where we get a more comfortable understanding of things that don't go into too much inconvenient detail.

-Mak Thorpe 10:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two main reasons why this picture is not appropriate for use on wikipedia.

Firstly, it does not show the effect of a successful firing of an IED on their most common target: light to medium vehicles. A picture of a burnt-out Humvee with a close-up of the damaged cab would demonstrate the effects of IEDs much better.

Secondly, using what appears to be a touched-up photo from a militaristic snuff site (see the blood below the torso--it looks blurry and much too red), is a bad call. Apparently the image had to be edited to bring it within the boundary of good taste (I believe there was a caption of some kind?)

For these reasons, I am removing the picture. If Mak Thorpe can get a few votes other than his own for keeping it, we could bring in a mod and make it official.

Therealhazel 09:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Therealhazel, last thing first. First thing last. Your second point is without merit, and clearly without any effort of research on your part. May I recommend you investigate your statements before engaging in idle speculation? Presumably you have examined the image page. Did you read it? The source of the image is indicated, and you can verify it for yourself. Oddly you did not bother to do this. Militaristic snuff site? The site is so well known that there is a wiki article on it: Ogrish.com. Please show us where the article refers to it as a militaristic snuff site. Ogrish has a bad reputation for posting images that the pentagon does not want soldiers to release to the public. But it does not have the reputation of posting faked images. Ogrish sells themselves as dishing up reality. The moment it is proved that what they are dishing up is faked is the moment they are portrayed as a farce. Since there are so many lurid photos available, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by releasing one whose authenticity they have doubts about.

But perhaps you have some new information you would like to share concerning your speculations about the authenticity of the images they post on their site. Possibly you can compare it to the other pictures illustrating that a very sophisticated approach of photoshop editing is at work here, for the same shades of red, the same individuals and the same site from different angles, all corroborate this very clever and elaborate hoax. If your speculations are valid, then the wiki article should at least mention that the authenticity of the images on the site is disputed by some individuals.

So much for impuning reputation of the site as the source of the image. As for my personal motives, I personally have no agenda nor any specific interest in shock images. Of the several hundred images I have uploaded to Commons (feel free to browse), images that would offend are truly a rarity. The subject matter of my 10,000 edits stretch from art to geographic categorization to classifications of naval ships.

So let's cut behind Therealhazel's refusal to research his idle conjectures and get to the meat of his assertion. In my first note, I reviewed the reasons why such images are generally excluded from encyclopedias. I fully appreciate this is a controversial content question.

The substance of Therealhazel's first point is completely understandable. Were we trying to be Britannica, clearly we would shun such imagery. The safe approach tells the untruth that the objective of such antipersonel weapons is to destroy machines not human beings. Certainly, it is much more comfortable to consider the mechanics of the destruction of a machine than the destruction of a human being. Not just comfortable, but entertaining. People pay money for demolition derby and encyclopedias that pander to the same portrayal of warfare. Sure- the grisly reality is not fun, and the truth of what these weapons do involves more than simple mechanics. So is that what we are after? Is the measure of truth that which we feel will be most comfortable for our readers? Why do we view one as a "scientific" and dispassionate treatment whereas the other is "lurid" and pandering to coarseness? Therealhazel states that the image is only illustrative if we show what IEDs do to machines. On the contrary, IEDs would have no relevance if all they do is destroy machines. Insurgents would have zero interest in them if that were their objective. Is it more humane to refuse to portray the inhumane accurately?

I am of a different opinion. This is the real mechanics of war that militaries don't want the public to see. Very actively the pentagon in particular has been aggressively seeking to stop soldiers from sending images to Ogrish. But just as agressively mullahs are only interested in imagery that displays the inhumanity of their enemies, not the inhumanity of their means of resolving conflicts. But the complicity of silence stretches beyond. This same imagery does a poor job sell advertising time on network news. Am I proposing something so very radical? Should every article on weapons systems show what they do to human bodies? Of course not. But neither should it be possible to read hundreds of articles on weapons systems, but not come across a single image that displays the fundamental purpose of these weapons- that of killing human beings, oftentimes in extremely unpalatable ways.

In oppostion to the redacted version that traditional media portray, we understand that perpetuating the ignorance about the realities of warfare makes it simpler for individuals and groups make monumental miscalculations.

Which version does Wikipedia choose to portray? -Mak Thorpe 07:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we're not trying to "be the britannica," but there's still a big gap between meeting wikipedia standards and posting pictures from sites like ogrish. I grant that the site is not particularly miltaristic, but every other objection still stands. Here's a few of their picture/video titles for you: Image - Torture and murder-Brazil. - [08/ 7/06]

Image - Woman strangled by husband - [08/ 8/06]

And here are a few of their links: Goregasm: http://www.goregasm.com/ Sexy Celebs: http://www.freecelebritylessons.com/

We do NOT want to be associated with a site like this. For that reason, I'm deleting the picture, at least until someone else speaks up on this issue. If you want to have a picture that shows the effect of IEDs, you should _get a better one_ for 3 reasons:

Firstly: it doesn't show the effect of an IED attack, but an IED _accident_. Depending on the type of munition, the results might be quite different. Simply put, _any_ large explosion could have caused that poor man's wounds, so what's the point of having the image if it doesn't show the particular qualities of IEDs? A damaged armored vehicle would better show the effect of the shaped-charged munitions that are making these weapons so effective.

Secondly: The picture is very low quality. There are better ones available.

Thirdly: Right next to the picture is the text says: "Beginning in July 2003, the Iraqi insurgency used IEDs—more often referred to as roadside bombs by the press—to target American and Coalition vehicles." That's VEHICLES. For the most part, the bombs are placed near roads to hit _vehicles_. People can be killed by snipers, but IEDs or rockets are needed to attack IFVs, which is why they are the primary target.

Please do not repost the image, at least until more people have voiced their opinions.

Therealhazel 02:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the picture doesn't belong in the article. I like that Wikipedia is uncensored -- that pubic mound has a picture of a pubic mound, for instance. However, this does not mean that pistol should have a picture of a person shot by a pistol, let alone an accidental shooting, even though the purpose of a pistol is pretty much to kill people. I also like ogrish.com, but if you want to put a picture of "mutilated dead guy" on a wikipedia article, the image would have to be not just relevant, but downright iconic. So a picture of Kennedy's head exploding doesn't belong on John F. Kennedy, but does belong on the Zapruder film page.

I for one wouldn't have a problem with the ogrish images being linked to in External Links (preferably with a "warning! graphic images"), although you'll have almost as much trouble keeping that link in the article as you will including the photo directly. When you try to impose a taste upon the wikipedia that is outside the mainstream, you can get "your way" for a few edits, but in the long run, you'll get out-edited. Best of luck.--Parous 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to summarize the reasoning here:

• Therealhazel:

1. The image violates Wikipedia standards.
2. The important thing to show in the article on IEDs is how well they defeat the protection of soldiers, not what happens to the human body when such protection is defeated.
3. The incident illustrated an IED misfire and so is not representative of how they behave when they perform as designed. The damage portrayed is fairly generic to any sort of close proximity explosion.
4. The low quality of the image is percievable in the thumbnail version that appears in the article and does not meet WP quality standards on images.

• Parous:

1. It is insufficient that an image be relevant. The image must be "downright iconic" if an image is gruesome. The meaning of "downright iconic" is unclear, but what is clear is that there is a higher bar that such images must clear. The question is really not one of relevance but of taste.

-Is this an accurate encapsulation of your positions?

-Therealhazel- I'd be happy to oscillate the article between both versions until such time as it is clear that there is a general concensus that the image and those similar to it are not appropriate to this article. I have not heard back how Riddley felt after I made my case. So we have just you and Parous who feel strongly. If anyone has been lurking, and don't care to expound but don't mind weighing in with simple yeahs and nays, I think that would be helpful. Probably not helpful to my position, since I know this is not business as usual.

I've pretty much stated my position- without such information on at least one or two of the hundreds of weapons pages we really get a antiseptic video game view of reality. Ironically, by suppressing the gruesome reality of WWI, the media of the time perpetuated collective fantasies about war. The question is whether WP is complicit in that illusion or not. -Mak Thorpe 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's more or less my position. I'd say it's a combination of taste and relevance. I think the pictures are rather graphic, and only indirectly relevant. That's a double-whammy: they're not likely to remain in the article. I would support a version of the article which had the Ogrish images in External Links, which is an easier to defend position for them (to use the military metaphor).

On the subject of relevance, I've added a link to a video of an IED attack.--Parous 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. But a pile of random munitions not even plannned for IEDs, not even from Iraq is relevant to the article. Let's dispense with hiding behind this relevance assertion and get to the core of it. Can you imagine cases where a gruesome photo would be acceptable in a weapons article? If so, could you give some examples? When the reality is gruesome, is that a place where wikipedia just can't go? -Mak Thorpe 07:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should further clarify my stance. By iconic I mean (grisly) images that were widely circulated, and probably only then in the "mainstream media" -- and finally, only when centrally relevant to the article. There might be a judgement call as to what is and isn't widely circulated/mainstream media/relevant. A few examples of the judgement calls I'd make:

• Kennedy's head exploding: no in John F. Kennedy, yes in Zapruder film.
• Any of the images at Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse: yes there, one or two at torture as well.
• The contractors hanging: possibly at Operation_Vigilant_Resolve, definitely at an article directly about their killings (which is absent from the encyclopedia at this time).
• People jumping from the World Trade Center: no at WTC, yes at September_11,_2001_attacks.
• Phan_Thị_Kim_Phúc, Nguyen_Van_Lem, and My_Lai_Massacre at Vietnam War: yes, because each were emblematic of the war, and widely circulated.
• Any grisly image that hasn't been widely circulated in connection with a given subject: no.

What it comes down to is that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox -- for either side of contentious issues. By adhering to the principle that only pristinely-documented statements (or pictures) should appear in the wikipedia, along with trying to maintain a clear focus from article to article, I think the wikipedia serves all parties best.

As for the relevance of the munitions photo, maybe the Iraqi weapons cache on this page would be more suitable. May I ask you to upload it? I'm not experienced with image uploads to Wikipedia as yet.--Parous 08:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Better still: a "slam dunk".--Parous 09:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, that's pretty much my argument in 5 lines. Pity I can't be that concise when I'm writing them! :D Therealhazel 11:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox? What political/social point is being advocated here? Look. The reality of war is grisly. Period. WP may for "taste" reasons choose to shield their viewers from that reality.

The reality of what these weapon systems do is gruesome. I challenged you to state an instance where a gruesome picture might be included. You responded, only when it was iconic, but listed not a single gruesome picture. The closest was the My Lai picture- an image the military also did not want the public to see. The US Military provides huge numbers of images for free, and WP is flooded with them. I happily have uploaded many because they are in fact informative. But there should be balance. I think that WP should show all sides, and it is doing a pretty bad job of it on this score.

I have uploaded the Baghdad photo- it is PD so no problem using it widely on the WPs. In a bit of a rush now for a flight so maybe you can fix it. Be back in a week. Hopefully there will be more substantive responses on this issue by then. -Mak Thorpe 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the image. Does it need fixing? Looks okay to me.

I apologize for the use of the word "soapbox", it was a bit too strong. I sympathize with your desire to make the realities of war more vivid, but I don't agree that images of brutality in the body of articles is the right way to go about it. The fact that I couldn't cite many in-place examples of grisliness on Wikipedia suggests you are facing an uphill battle. Overall, Wikipedians seem (somewhat) more tolerant of nudity than of violence.--Parous 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the reality of the specific subject. The image is relevant to the article, and I propose as before that we oscilate the article with and without the image until such time there is a sufficient concensus that the image is or is not appropriate.

I appreciate the concern about the practicalities, however are they not generic to the general problem of majoritarianism on WPs? Say a wikipedia form of communication were available in the 17th century. Would your advice be the same? Hey- sure anyone can independently verify the observations Gallileo reported, but coverage of empirical science will be an uphill battle on the WPs?

How is it any different? All I see is a substitution of blind allegience to the authority of the church with blind acquiescence to the unreasoned concensus of the mob. -Mak Thorpe 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

British Claims?

"The British also accuse Iran and Hezbollah of teaching Iraqi fighters [...] Thus far the British have failed to present any evidence to substantiate their charges." - can we have a source to show by whom, and in what context, this claim has been made? --BarryNorton 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

they probably haven't produced any evidence to their claims as it's most likely classified, and you don't have a security clearance/need to know. it is a fact that the iranians have given efp technology to the insurgents. Parsecboy 11:41, 2 August 2006

What a load of bullshit. Shaped charges are known for about 120 years already. EFP, many years too. "The terrorists" don't need help from "the Iranians" to build a friggin shaped charge. Good to know that the propaganda works so well that even members of the military swallow it hook, line and sinker. Then again members of the armed forces have never been known to be the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Troll somewhere else. Parsecboy 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is a fact"? and what exactly are your marvelous 'classified' sources for making that claim? Actually if you're talking about the comments made by Reid, In the same statement he said that there was no evidence that Iran was behind any IED attacks in Iraq and as for the claim the article gives that "Britain charged that Iran was supplying insurgents with the technological know-how to make shaped charges" he merely suggested that some of the devices had similarities to devices made by Hezbollah-trained soldiers and there 'may well be a connection' to criminal elements withing Iran and even that acknowledgement was only given when prompted...

While we're at it Is there any reasonable citation to back up "The British also accused Iran and Hezbollah of teaching Iraqi fighters to use infrared light beams to trigger IEDs. As the occupation forces become more sophisticated in interrupting radio signals around their convoys, the Iraqis adapt their triggering methods. Thus far the British have failed to present any evidence to substantiate their charges." If so then good, but If not I'm removing it. I'm totally opposed to the silly propaganda and accusations being thrown around about the "evil" Iran, but using unfounded statements and exaggerations of your own is not the way to oppose the manipulation of information and wikipedia is certainly not the place for it. 81.151.124.131 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Elmo

if you must know, i'm an intelligence analyst in the U.S. army, and was serving in Iraq when the EFPs started showing up, from Iran. I was there, I saw the reports. if you don't think Iran and Syria have a hand in the chaos that is Iraq, you're incredibly naive. it's in both of their national interest to have a destabilized Iraq, with the U.S. bogged down in it. Parsecboy 19:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You want some sources that show explicit support of Iraqi insurgents by Iran?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

Parsecboy 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Landmines

How are IEDs different from land mines? I read a discussion of the failure in Vietnam and the use of "improvised landmines" was given as the reason for the great loss of life. Apparently the US landmines and other found explosives were found by the Vietnamese and rerigged to be far more lethal targetting US troops. Reading that description I immediately realized that the situation in Iraq is identical to Vietnam. And it seemed to me that the Army purposely invented a new name to avoid the spector of facing that old Vietnam menace for which no technology has been found to counter. Mulp 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

i would say it's not so much the avoidance of being compared to vietnam as much as it's the military's in general love of making new acronyms. road side bombs are now ied's, carbombs are now vbieds (vehicle borne ied), suicide bombers became pbieds (personnel-borne ied). everything gets an acronym. besides, there's a small difference between the old trip-wire rigged grenades of vietnam and the daisy-chained 155 rounds buried under the roads with an pir sensor attached to them. Parsecboy 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Excessive Definitions

Due to the different meanings of the abbreviation IED, there are already four seperate links to other articles at the top of the page. They make the page look cluttered, and I recommend that a seperate IED disambiguation page be created. 204.245.115.59 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I am still too new to know all the ins and outs of creating such a page though.Sir hugo 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. I also did some copyediting. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The US Experience?

If the wiki is supposed to be non-POV then why is there a section here on the US experience but no section on the experience of any other country. Having a section on the US experience gives the whole article a US-centric POV. Given the British battled IEDs for 30+ years in Northern Ireland, arent they more deserving of a dedicated section than the US? Particularly as it was the British who invented the bomb-disposal robots "wheel barrows", one of which is pictured here? Arent the British also facing IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan? So why the "US experience"?!

I've changed the too-broad header "U.S. experience" to "U.S. countermeasures". As for the absence of a section on British countermeasures, feel free to rectify that oversight.--Parous 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Parous, and while I promise Im not just trying to be a difficult old so-and-so here, wouldnt a section on US countermeasures be better placed in the EOD article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_disposal)? If you think the current situation in Iraq warrants special attention then include it in a section on Iraq. Surely? Promise I'll get to work on the British countermeasures in the EOD article when I have the time.

Well, some transfusion between the articles might be warranted. The text in the countermeasures section right now is quite specific to IEDs and seems appropriate for this article. I wouldn't move it to the History->Iraq subsection because it isn't really historical in nature.

A couple of editing tips: intra-encyclopedia links are formed like so: [[Bomb_disposal]], and it is customary to sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes, like so: --~~~~.

Welcome to Wikipedia! I look forward to your additions. Citing sources for the information you add is the best way to ensure it remains in the article; this can be as simple as a web link in brackets: for instance, [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied-iraq.htm] produces [1].--Parous 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The use of "terrorists" in the beginning irks me. (One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and all that.) I'm removing the word altogether. 68.33.185.185 02:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed US Countermeasures to Countermeasures

The term countermeasures is not US specific and was being used by the British Army over 30 years ago, its not really correct to declare it US

Snozzer 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is this picture relevant here?. Randroide 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not really unless you give it a description and all there is is fuel and a couple of shells. Also, who the heck are those guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Toast (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam IED merge proposal

I put up merge proposals for two stub articles on Viet Cong IEDs - Rubber Band Grenade and Grenade in a Can. Think the material should fit in here - the Vietnam section is a little skimpy anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJASE1 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

The Term IED

"IED" sounds like Newspeak to me. Isn't it just a nice way of saying bomb? Perhaps we should consider adding a section to the article which addresses the history and/or connotations of the name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ornen (talk • contribs) 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Its the same with "VBIED (vehicle borne IED)" replacing "car bomb" or "PBIED (personnel borne IED)" instead of "suicide bomber". The military loves its acronyms and jargon, and seemingly every new commander has to make up one of his own. It used to be "FREs (former regime elements)", then it was "saddamists"; now that he's been executed, I'm sure there's a new term for them. Parsecboy 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Bomb can mean anything from a mortar shell to a 500lb air dropped munition. IED refers to terrorist, crimanal and crank devices, that have been improvised in some way (i.e. Not made in a munitions factory). The term IED has been around now for a long time, at least 40 years with the British Armies fight against the IRA terrorists. Gimpmask 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The preceding proves my case. "I.E.D." is what "criminals" and "terrorists" use, "bombs" are what non-criminals and non-terrorists use. This is like saying that the guns held by police-officers are different from the guns held by bank-robbers. They're just not. A gun is a gun is a gun. Do bank-robbers use guns or do they use "improvised bullet-hurling devices" while the police use "guns"?12:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I changed 'official' to 'recent' at the start of the page. I've seen countless documentaries about war and none of them (including the Falklands war and Iraq war) referred to IED. Change it back if you wish, but not without clarifying the term 'offical'.ANTIcarrot 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There should definately be a history section, the term IED was invented with the Iraq war I believe. Harley peters 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• It dates to at least 1998, because it's used in The X Files. I doubt they coined it themselves. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

IED invented with Iraq war, your'e aving a laugh aint you. Its been around for at least 40years with the British fighting the Irish terrorists and Ammunition Technicians diarming their IED's Gimpmask 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, the question is whether said devices were called IEDs or not. The term obviously predates the current war, though. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if they were not called IED's no one would ever have used the term. There can be no question of whether devices were called that or not, they are, they have been and most likely will contibue to be called IED's Gimpmask 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that the general public was largely unaware of the term IED prior to the second US-Iraq war. Before that, bombs were bombs, whether constructed munitions or creative booby-traps. Living in the US since before 2001, two of the things that struck me most as bad signs of the political climate to come were the introduction of the terms "IED" and "homeland" to the public. Calling bombs IEDs is like deliberately labeling certain artistic works as "outsider" or "amateur" art. Just as all works of art should be judged on their own, not by who created them or under what circumstance, anything that blows up is a "bomb" in my book, regardless of it's a radio-detonated pack of C4 or a bucket of homemade TATP rigged to a photostrobe and wristwatch.Alvis 05:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct! Now WHY was the general public largely unaware of the term "IED" prior to the second US-Iraq war? It's because there was no deficiency in using the word "bomb" to refer to things for which military jargoneers and talking-head TV-news know-it-alls choose the term "IED". Since there was no NEED to invent a word that would differentiate home-made from institution-made bombs, and since the distinction between home-made and institution-made bombs is utterly irrelevant except to ideological spin-doctors, the public didn't absorb the term "IED" until it was parroted from the military by uncritical tv-"journalist"-celebs.69.86.239.244 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

May I add my vote for history of the term section. If X-files is best starting point for the term's origin, then this episode should be listed as the start of the term. What is the episode? I will try to have a search for it. Fremte 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A search of the New York Times site: [2] turns up a story from 1984 using the term. A Library of Congress search turned up this book, which apparently is a reprint of a late-70s British EOD publication. But those publications may have gotten the term from yet other places. Unless we have an actual "where it was coined" source, and not just a "first use that we've found", we should omit the section.--Father Goose 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Father Goose; there has to be a definitive first usage of the term before we can start a section based on its origin. Parsecboy 00:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is that if this is not a term or recent invention, since the 2 current wars prosecuted by the USA and others, it somehow needs to be clear. Otherwise, we have the sense of "collateral damage", VSA (vital signs absent). Fremte 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The term dates back to the 1970's with the British campaign against Irish Terrorism If you can get a copy of Stopping the clock by PG Macdonald Macdonald, PG (1977). Stopping the clock. Robert Hale - London. ISBN 0709161913. you will find the term IED used througout the book. He references Ammunition Technicians and Ammunition Technical Officers in the British Army from the then RAOC training at The Felix Centre. So we can date it back to at least 1977 from the book, but AT's from 321 EOD were using it from at least 1971. Boooooom 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User Boooooom has provided what appears to be an authenticable published citation of usage going back 30 years. Does this not merit inclusion in the article itself? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. If someone has access to the book, go right ahead. There's never a problem with adding sourced factual information :) Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the book, and its right in there (Worth reading if you can get a copy...) Boooooom (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

IED has been used by the military forever, I went to NAVSCOLEOD and learned the term there. If you dont know what EOD is then dont claim to know where IED came from. A "bomb" has always been - an air dropped munition consisting of a shell filled with explosives that is detonated by the functioning of a fuse—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.69.91 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is just wrong. "IED" has been used by the military forever? Even in 100,000 B.C.? Yes, I know that you did not think that the military was using the term "IED" in 100,000 B.C. But when someone writes the word "forever" like that and DOES NOT mean LITERALLY forever, since time began, what does it mean? It means "forever" from THEIR PEROSNAL POINT OF VIEW. Well, Wikipedia should be written from a point of veiw that includes all of history, not just one person's experience. Just because something has always been true in the limited experience of one person doesn't mean it has always been true. Furthermore, since when does the MILITARY get to decide English usage? Why does the military's ideologically-motivated slant, which is not disinterested, carry more weight on a question of usage than a dictionary compiled by professionals in the field of words? It's wrong to say 'A "bomb" has always been - an air dropped munition ...' and it's MORE wrong if the only reason you're saying so is that the MILITARY says it. The military doesn't get to make the call. The military is not a bunch of linguits and philologists. The word "bomb" goes back long before airplanes, and before lighter-than-air balloons. How did people air-drop the things called "bombs" in the late 1600's? I just now took a random walk to find counterexamples, and they abound. The Wikipedia article on the Wall-Street bombing outside JPMorgan's office says the explosive was a "bomb", NOT an IED. Show me the newspaper-clipping of those days that calls them "IED"s. Wikipedia says that the Wall-Street Bombing perpetrators, be they anarchists or Galleanists or what-have-you, exploded LOTS of "bombs" in those days. This rag-tag group of malcontents was using airplanes? Or balloons? Well, no, one article says the bomb was in a horse-drawn wagon (i.e. an "HDW", if you think the military has the right to make up its own acronyms to replace everyday words in order to control the "spin" on language).69.86.239.244 (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The British Army ATOs were calling them 'IEDs' way back before anyone else, because that was what they were - Improvised Explosive Devices, they encountered them prior to Northern Ireland back during the Malayan Emergency when Chinese insurgents were leaving them in public places hoping some civilian would pick one up and have his-or-her hand or arm blown-off. It was the British who helped set up the US-equivalent of the EOD Companies so a large amount of what they now know about bomb disposal they got from the UK in the first place, so I wouldn't start going on about how the US is so much more experienced at EOD than anyone else, as the British will laugh at you.

Look at what you've written above: you've said that they are "IED"s but that the units that seek to thwart them "know about bomb disposal". Didn't you man "IED disposal"? Doesn't this gaffe prove that you now underneath it all that "IED" is just Orwellian military-speak for an object for which the word "bomb" (a word which you just used, in the same paragraph) serves just as well without attempting any "spin" or "tone"-manipulation? 69.86.239.244 (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

As for the British Army's experience in these matters, I can well remember a friend of mine telling me how when he was stationed at Deal Barracks in 1989 he had to go round the parade ground picking up various body parts of people he knew who had been blown to bits by a bomb that had been planted there. That was in 1989, when certain groups of people in places like Boston in the US were happily collecting money to pay for Armalites, AK-47s and large quantities of fertiliser. Still, it helped our ATOs get experience I suppose, at least it did for the ones who lived. Lest this sound like some tirade against the US citizen I can only say it isn't - we like you (well most of us do) but you really should get out and learn more. It could have saved you all a lot of the trouble you (and we Britons) are now in.

Quite right. "blown to bits by a BOMB that had been planted there". A BOMB. NOT an I.E.D., notwithstanding that it was "planted" as opposed to dropped from the air.69.86.239.244 (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Anyway, for an interesting read on the British Army's Bomb Disposal teams from their inception during WW II to their time in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and later elsewhere, try this one: A Special Kind of Courage: Bomb Disposal and the Inside Story of 321 EOD Squadron by Chris Ryder. - I can recommend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.58 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the resolution should be a retitling of this article to something like "Improvised Explosive Device (Military Nomenclature)". Toolmaking primates improvise all the time but we don't refer to "Improvised Projectile Weapons" (zipguns) , "Improvised Lock Defeating Devices" (bumpkeys), or "Improvised Apple Based Combined Nutritive and Olfactory Entertainment Device" (homeade apple pie). The fact that it is improvised (rather than mass produced) is only relevant in a military and political broadview, and in that sense it truly is non-trivial and I think the article should inform the reader of this early in the article. While there may be trends in IEDs there is really only 2 defining characteristics, that it is a functional bomb and that it is not uniformly mass produced. The bomb article makes mention of the word as it is in military nomenclature an air dropped explosive munition, but that it's usage is neither exclusive with nor originating from the military. Grabba (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War IEDs

I updated the section on IEDs in the Iraq War a little, but there still is much more to do. Much of the information dates back to 2005. According to iCasualties.org, over 36% of US casualties in the Iraq War are caused by IED's, so this is an important section. I will do my best to update more when I have time.

Tomertomer 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (also 208.127.24.29)

Removing the term insurgency

By definition insurgency is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. There is no authority in Iraq. There is an invasion by US occupation forces. That is not an authority. Therefore I changed the term insurgents to guerrillas. SeiteNichtGefunden 17/07/2007 22:36 GMT.

Tell that to Nouri-al Maliki and Jalal Talabani. Parsecboy 22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the term terrorist

Terrorist is a US Pentagon label invented to stereotype anyone who fights against them. The warriors who put IEDs are not terrorists. Their intention is to kill the illegal occupation forces. SeiteNichtGefunden 17/07/2007 22:38 GMT.

If that's the case, then why have these "guerrillas" murdered at least 10 times the number of civilians as they have killed soldiers? Why do they deliberately target religious shrines such as the Golden Dome Mosque, when no Coalition forces are in the area? This sounds like anti-American vitriol, which has no place in an encyclopedia. Parsecboy 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

While the (now-blocked) user is attacking this from the point of view of Iraq, it's obviously true in the general case. Terrorists have used nail bombs for decades. Just thought I'd point out that these reverts weren't simply for the user's attitude. Chris Cunningham 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A "Nail Bomb" is just an older type of IED- One going back before the Politically Correct term "Improvized Expolsive Device" was created. I see nothing true, correct, or factual in any of "SeiteNichtGefunden's" comments- So what is "true in the general case"?

Agreed. The article doesn't call Iraqis, or any specific group "terrorists" (although it does refer to Iraqi "insurgents"). Regardless of the Pentagon's misuse of the term, terrorists, in the abstract, have been known to use IEDs. If you want to get the world to stop using the term "terrorist" in general, you're not going to succeed just by editing this article. Or by striking it anywhere else from Wikipedia, for that matter.--Father Goose 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Answer for Parsecboy (second paragraph): There is no evidence that "they" (which I assume you refer to the "terrorists") are targeting religious shrines. It could simply be the US or Israel who is doing that as a military stategy. They have done that in the past (Vietnam, Cuba). You and I cannot assume that and we must be careful because the information given to us by the media is not accurate. This is not anti-American vitriol. I do not know if the guerrillas are murdering 10 times more civilians than the occupiers. How do you know that? 2. Answer for Chris Cunningham (third paragraph) "Terrorists" have used nail bombs. I didn't know that IED where nail bombs. And the US has used what? flower bombs? 3. Answer to Father Goose (4th paragraph): I agree that the article does not call Iraqis "terrorists". User:SeiteNichtGefunden 00:26 24 June 2007 (GMT)

Let me make this clear. The main issue here is: Why not also saying that arrows, guns or any other weapon is used by "terrorists". IED is a weapon or a tool used as a weapon. Currently it is famous due to the Iraqi conflict. Another issue is that the term terrorism, in my opinion, is being used abusivly throught Wikipedia (and the media too). Why don't we go the the American history and call terrorists to what the current US citizens did to the native Indians? Or any other nation (my nation also invaded, commited genocide). IED is a tool, a weapon. It is also used by "terrorists" as any other weapon. ThanksUser:SeiteNichtGefunden 00:26 24 June 2007 (GMT)

There is plenty of evidence that the insurgents are targetting religious shrines, read Imam Hussein Mosque bombing, Imam Abbas Mosque bombing, and Al-Askari_Mosque#Bombings for starters. Oh, don't give me that "It might be the US or Israel" bullshit. When in Vietnam or Cuba did American troops ever deliberately target religious shrines, and pretend it was someone else? Yes, it is, in fact, anti-Western vitriol. The point is that civilians have been killed more than 10 times the number of coalition soldiers, and this is by the various insurgent groups, be they Ansar al-Sunna, the Jaysh-al-Madhi, or the fanatics loosely (barely) associated with al-Qaeda, or whatever group. As for your reply to Thumperwad, is a nail bomb something mass produced in a factory, or is it made by hand? Would you call that sort of device improvised? Then yes, it's a type of IED.

To reply to your second paragraph, IEDs are one of the most commonly used weapons by the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq. Therefore, it's very notable to discuss their use here. If you have a problem with that, then tough. Your opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia, unless you have reliable sources to back them up. Go promote your anti-Western crusade somewhere else. Parsecboy 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

SeiteNichtGefunden, how would you define "terrorist" or "terrorism"? Even if you personally abhor those words, do they have any definition that is consistently employed by the world at large? I understand it to mean acts of war deliberately targeting civilians instead of military targets. This is not equivalent to "guerillas". That the term "terrorist" is sometimes distorted to mean "any enemy of the United States" does not invalidate its original meaning. The article in its present form does not use the distorted meaning.

Separately, what is an IED? I understand it to mean an explosive device which was not manufactured or otherwise assembled by any military weapons manufacturer. Professional militaries use specially designed and manufactured weapons, but underground groups (including terrorists) have to use a lot of homebrew stuff. Can you see past your hatred of the term's overuse to see a) groups that attack civilians are conventionally called "terrorists" and b) they use IEDs cause they can't get their weapons from General Dynamics?

--Father Goose 02:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You "didn't know that IED where nail bombs"? Can I assume this to mean that you don't think nail bombs are improvised explosive devices? I don't think you really understand what this article's subject matter actually is. Chris Cunningham 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more sources that might be resourceful:

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Improvised Explosive Devices in Iraq: Effects and Countermeasures [3]

NewsHour
Military Grapples with Onslaught of Homemade Bombs in Iraq
[4]

Guy Fawkes

Would Guy Fawkes' gunpowder in barrels in a basement constitute an IED? Why or why not? — Rickyrab | Talk 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything other than military ordnance counts as an IED. I'm not sure that this particular example is exceptional. Chris Cunningham 11:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why was my addition of Confederates wiring artillery shells to telegraph wires "Not an IED"? Do yoou actually know ANYTHING about the subject matter? Or are you making this all up as you go along? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.4.28 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Show me the handbills and broadsides of the day that said that the Guy Fawkes incident employed I.E.D.s and not bombs. The previous poster say that anything other than military ordinance counts as an IED, but does not say WHY it SHOULD so count as an IED and not a bomb. What good reason is there for referring to a non-military explosive as one noun and a military one as another noun?69.86.239.244 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The opening

I don't like this line in the opening paragraph;

"In the 2003–present Iraq War, IEDs have been used extensively against coalition forces and by the end of 2007 they have been the reason for two-thirds of all US deaths in Iraq, which could have been prevented, had the Pentagon given their troops the MRAP instead of equipping them with the highly vulnerable HumVee."<:ref>More U.S. Troops Die in Iraq Bombings Even as Armoring Improves, Bloomberg</ref> <:ref> More Attacks, Mounting Casualties, Washington Post</ref>

• This statement implies that "The Pentagon" had enough MRAP's for all U.S. troops to use at the start of the Iraq war, but for some reason decided not to hand them over. Which is preposterous cosidering that we all know about the well documented race to make and buy enough of these things for everyone to use.

• The 1st reference never says anything to the effect of "which could have been prevented, had the Pentagon given their troops the MRAP instead of equipping them with the highly vulnerable HumVee."

• Also the 1st reference gives quotes that seem to contradict the above statement, such as;

"It's a losing game because they can always build a bigger bomb," said Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a defense policy research group in Arlington, Virginia.

• And finally, the 2nd reference is just charts and doesn't even mention anything, at all about the MRAP!

I'm gonna to remove the last line of the statement so it looks like this;

"In the 2003–present Iraq War, IEDs have been used extensively against coalition forces and by the end of 2007 they have been the reason for two-thirds of all US deaths in Iraq."

Let me know what you guys think, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; that is a little POV to state that line, especially how it's phrased. It's not for this article to discuss anyways. Go ahead and remove it. One thing I'd like to point out here while we're on the introduction is, does anyone have a source for the 2/3 of all deaths figure? I thought I had read somewhere that they were actually a much smaller percentage of the deaths. I could be wrong, but a source to back it up would be nice too :) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a source, it's here [5] (but u have to click on U.S. only) and you can couple it with this [6] to compare it to the total toll. Speaking of which perhaps it'd be nice to change the opening instead to;

"In the 2003–present Iraq War, IEDs have been used extensively against coalition forces and by the end of 2007 they have been the reason for approximately at least 40% of coalition deaths in Iraq."

Let me know what u think? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There weren't nearly enough MRAP's to go around in 2003, and in fact they didn't really roll off the lines until 2007 or so. (Indeed, I have doubts they were around in "2002" as the wikipedia article on the matter flatly states). The "nuetrality" of the comments are hardly suprising- But this is Wikipedia after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.4.28 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Link 24 (independent.co.uk) seems broken

Maybe it is just me though. --86.144.20.95 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.