Originally Posted by
GUWonder
IED 101: a non-IED isn't an IED.
A viable IED threat from a non-IED? No.
"Suspected cell phone bombs" in cargo/checked luggage at two Indian airports this month were not cellphone bombs.
Union, not State. The story hasn't been consistent from there.
All of these non-IED "IEDs" were a "part of a concerted, coordinated and continuing series of tests to get IEDs through passenger and baggage screening"? Which conspiratorial organization was responsible for all of these non-IED "IEDs", and why would they go for non-IEDs instead of IEDs? More of the "dry run" conspiracy thinking?
I think this nitpicking does not further the discussion as I am sure almost everyone reading this understands what was meant but you are correct that language matters so I will indulge.
To the first question: Yes, probably, and likely, that all of these "non-explosive" devices were part of a concerted, coordinated and continuing series of tests of screening procedures to get IEDs through passenger and baggage screening" although it is possible that it was just somebody "having fun" (like putting fake dog poop on a sidewalk).
Above my pay grade and job responsibilities to share publicly who is suspected of doing this latest series for your second question. But surely you are not unaware that this area of the world is rife with individuals and groups that regularly use violence to further their viewpoints?
Perhaps the bad guys didn't want to burn a limited supply of materiel on a series of test runs? Another consideration is that today many explosives are traceable through chemical tags. Perhaps the bad guys didn't want to make it easier for security services to find them before doing it for real?
Absolutely for the fourth.