Training for the Jihad (merged thread)

[selil]

Can i just put it on my website and let y'all download it? Or is that like farting in public? I've got unlimited bandwidth...

[SoiCowboy]

Sorry about the hassle with megaupload. Yeah, selil, feel free to host it.

Thanks for the heads-up Stan, I'll add that. I was thinking more of terrorism worldwide and using IED and bomb interchangeably (whether that's right or not).

RTK, my 'so what' factor is me trying to say three points. That a lot of US institutions, like the Department of Justice and some of the US Army's doctrine writers, are about 20 years behind the curve, that Iraq is the most important thing happening for making bombs, and that other groups are copying the Iraqis using the internet.

[selil]

SoiCowboy your document is located here (276KB, pdf)

[Stan]

Thanks Sam, it works and I no longer need RTK's credit card

SoiCowboy,
I need to do some research, but during our last course with the METs SO13 and SO15 earlier this year, the stats for ANFO were less than 20 percent. Large devices or incidences such as The Oklahoma Bomber Mcveigh require far more background and, to say the least room for the IED (you need a lot because correctly mixed ANFO has barely 75% of commercial grade TNT's explosive force). Furthermore, ANFO is extremely unstable and sensitive to electrostatic discharge (ESD).

Comp. B and C (aka C4) (military grade explosives used in artillery shells and demolitions) are very stable or insensitive, and relatively easy to come by, especially in Iraq.

I'll get off my soapbox now

[SoiCowboy]

No, I'm glad for your input.

Was the Mets stats just for England or worldwide? Are they classified?

I was under the impression that ANFO is fine as long as the blasting cap and booster were kept separately from the main device and only assembled on site.

Of course if you have it all rigged together ready to go I can see how an electric current would detonate it.

Do you need any special knowledge to detonate C4 beyond needing a detonator and booster?

[Stan]

No, I'm glad for your input.

Was the Mets stats just for England or worldwide? Are they classified?

The materials we have are marked FOUO, but I only have paper versions as they could not legally send us e-versions. The book's about 7 inches of paper. The training we performed together was mostly post blast and anti-terrorism. The stats were collected together with NATO and other LEs and are world-wide figures.

I was under the impression that ANFO is fine as long as the blasting cap and booster were kept separately from the main device and only assembled on site.

Of course if you have it all rigged together ready to go I can see how an electric current would detonate it.

Actually, even high grade ANFO will not explode with just a detonator (a bit stronger version of the movie favorites 'blasting cap"), and you will also need a good primary explosive source (like TNT) (booster as you put it) to create the "explosive train". You're right, better assemble things on site or those pesky ESDs will get ya

Do you need any special knowledge to detonate C4 beyond needing a detonator and booster?

Nope, almost none at all. You can even take a piece and light it with a match, heat your rations, or throw it in a fire and just watch it burn. But, don't go stompin' out the fire or hit it with a hammer

No primary explosive is needed - just a good detonator - carefully push it into the C4 (or make a hole like the detonator wells on Claymores), apply 9 to 12 VDC (Ooops, forgot, get far away first and use plenty of WD1 wire), and there you go.

C4 unlike in the movies is not the high explosive most would think, it's only about 1,3 times stronger than commercial grade TNT. It is however the military's favorite, as you can do just about anything with it and it won't detonate (save putting a detonator in it).

[SoiCowboy]

Would it be fair to say that ANFO is the bomb of choice for beginner bombers and truck bombers?

I'm going to go away and read up more now. Thanks again.

[RTK]

RTK, my 'so what' factor is me trying to say three points. That a lot of US institutions, like the Department of Justice and some of the US Army's doctrine writers, are about 20 years behind the curve, that Iraq is the most important thing happening for making bombs, and that other groups are copying the Iraqis using the internet.

I'm not trying to slap you down, it's just that after a long day of molding LTs I tend to be short and to the point.

I think if the above stated concept is the thesis than you can probably go a little further to develop it. And, again, I'd use the full URLs so one can see the variety of sources that you've used instead of cross-referencing each and every one.

[SoiCowboy]

RTK, its no worries here. I like short and to the point. Will do on the urls.

Stan, I wasn't thinking about 18 wheelers, more like dumpsters and beer trucks that can get away with being large and in a town center. As you say with the anarchists and their dynamite, whats old is new again. The difference (as far as I can see) is this time, you can innovate much faster.

[Jedburgh]

...a lot of US institutions, like the Department of Justice and some of the US Army's doctrine writers, are about 20 years behind the curve....

I strongly disagree with this statement. By pre-OEF/OIF standards, doctrine has been developing at an amazing speed. Most importantly, entirely new FMs, TMs & TCs have been developed (for subjects that were never previously addressed in doctrine - especially regarding the IED threat, and on SSE, which is closely related), and the drafts put out to the key stakeholders out in the field with relative rapidity. It still takes a while for the drafts to be worked and re-worked (inital draft, draft, final draft, final approved draft, etc.) into final approved doctrine - but that is due nearly as much to the evolving nature of the threat as it is to administrative processes required for the doctrine to be approved and published for implementation.

And, despite your statement in the paper, you ain't gonna find most of these on GlobalSecurity.org, Cryptome.org or FAS.org.

[SoiCowboy]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.

[Tom Odom]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.

Try a bit more finesse on whether you are talking doctrine or TTP. Doctrine by definition is longer term. TTP--my business--is short term and often pushes doctrine in front of it like a bow wave. That has been very true for the past 5 years. You are correct that some doctrinal quarters are less amenable to change and indeed I still hear tensions expressed between "real War" and "COIN stuff". Sometimes the tensions between the doctrine side and the TTP side erupt into full disputes.

The other issue is manning. The old days where every proponent had a stable of doctrine writers is no more; they are short staffed and working priorities. In this regard, TTP chasers like me fill in the needs.

Best

Tom

[Jedburgh]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.

The TRADOC DCSINT Handbook series are not doctrine. They are essentially reference materials that provide background on select subjects along with limited lessons learned. CALL materials are also not doctrine - however, they focus on capturing valuable TTPs and lessons learned that often are later translated into doctrine. "Doctrine" that addresses the IED threat in the Army will be found in published Field Manuals (FMs) and Training Manuals (TMs), with a few other designations not mentioned.

[Stan]

Stan, As you say with the anarchists and their dynamite, whats old is new again. The difference (as far as I can see) is this time, you can innovate much faster.

Certainly true, but then forensic science has also come a long way. This may not hold true in Iraq, but look how quickly a forensic post blast found Yousef (sp?) in the 93 WTC bombing, or better yet, how quickly McVeigh & Nichols were caught.

The Tube bombings took a bit more time, but again forensic science also caught up with them.

I'll still check around for some current stats as promised.

I'll close with echoing what Jedburgh posted:

Such sites as GlobalSecurity.org, Cryptome.org or FAS.org are at best references and barely touch the surface. While you may find the chemical combinations and terms for explosives, much like the IRA in the early 70s, you won't find out just what percentage translates to hghly unstable. Those manuals are all classified, tried and true.

I don't know what the DOJ is doing, but I do know that the Army is not behind the curve.