Explosive charge (EFPs From Iran) blows up in US's face (And Hillary's too!)

[leftchick]

why does she keep repeating these same lies the WH has manufactured for war with Iran? It is 2002 all over again.....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ27Ak05.html


Explosive charge blows up in US's face

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - When the United States military command accused the Iranian Quds Force in January of providing the armor-piercing EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) that were killing US troops, it knew that Iraqi machine shops had been producing their own EFPs for years, a review of the historical record of evidence on EFPs in Iraq shows.

The record also shows that the US command had considerable evidence that the Mahdi Army of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
had received the technology and the training on how to use it from Hezbollah, rather than Iran.

The command, operating under close White House supervision, chose to deny these facts in making the dramatic accusation that became the main rationale for the present aggressive US stance toward Iran. Although the George W Bush administration initially limited the accusation to the Quds Force, it has recently begun to assert that top officials of the Iranian regime are responsible for arms that are killing US troops.

British and US officials observed from the beginning that the EFPs being used in Iraq closely resembled the ones used by Hezbollah against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, both in their design and the techniques for using them.

<snip>

It soon became such an accepted part of the media narrative on Iran and Iraq that the only issue about which reporters bother to ask questions is whether the top leaders of the Iranian government have approved the alleged Quds Force operation.

[Myrina]

1. ... do you really have to ask why she repeats their meme's?

... if it quacks like a duck ...


:shrug:

[hobbit709]

2. You got it.

That's what I say. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and has feathers like a duck-it's either a duck or a closely related waterfowl.

[leftchick]

4. I suppose it is a rhetorical question

I am just shocked so many can not see her for what she is.

[Skidmore]

45. Too many look at her and see Bill reflected back and the glory

of the DLC Camelot from the 1990s. Unfortunately, that vision bought us the glittering Shining Path of the Third Way, and was facilitated by Gingerich and his orchestra. We need to move on to the future. The world will not survive endless wars and corporate pillaging. She is the choice of the big business and the neocons.

[HereSince1628]

49. Isn't it curious that the Clintons' who have wonderful educations

would align themselves with the term "Third Way" which was used as a phalangist (imho, fascism by committee) motto before the DLC got a hold of it?

I've never been able to get my head around it.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Obama parrots WH memes to beat drums of war against Iran.

link:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/26/432566.aspx

“Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.” Later in the same speech, he said: “Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.” Sen. Barack Obama

[papau]

12. All the candidates are responsible folks - Asia Time OP article pretends Hez is not Iran -stupid but

apparently effective on DU.

I wonder where Hez does its weapons research and machine shop design and gets the machinable explosives, or indeed who provides the bulk of Hez's funding.

Edited to note that war is not the way to resolve this - economic sanctions will work quite nicely - and with the Iran Guard owning 1/3 of the Iran economy, perhaps that was the point of the Iran Guard as terrorist bill that was passed in the Senate.

[midnight armadillo]

14. maybe the internet...

I wonder where Hez does its weapons research and machine shop design and gets the machinable explosives, or indeed who provides the bulk of Hez's funding.

EFP's were invented quite some time ago. The use of shaped charges was discovered in 1888.

Look, you can even get a good picture of one on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator
With some pictures like that and a little Google research, a half-decent milling machine and copper plate, and some explosives experience (which is hardly in short supply) someone could easily start making their own EFP's. So why couldn't Hezbollah experiment in the desert and make their own? Or the Iraqis, for that matter?

[papau]

18. the half moon shaping of the atomic bomb charges were published in 58 - and without details

you just kill yourself playing with the U-235.

Of course you can learn the details over 40 years with a lot of lab work and hints from the US and funding from the US (as in Pakistan), but I don't think Hez has done that in either atomic U-235 machining, or in shaped charges machining.

The shaped charges being used are not the result of google research - they are very effective products of advanced research.

[midnight armadillo]

25. BIG difference there

Nuclear weapons are a vastly more difficult device than a shaped charge. There are no radioactive materials involved in an EFP.

Shaped charges were discovered by accident. An EFP could certainly be developed by trial-and-error. Certainly not as good as the military-issued ones, but effective enough.

[papau]

27. I agree - but the reports suggest they are either very lucky with trial and error or had help n/t

n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. the reports are bullshit.

they simply make this shit up. for their own purposes.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. don't even need a milling machine.

you can build a really effective device from one of the millions of artillery shells that we left unguarded in the many ammo warehouses, or hundreds of thousands of shells we seem to have misplaced in Iraq. Depending on the target, the thickness and shape of the copper head can easily be hammered by hand. (copper is really soft)

The US Army manual also diagrams how to make an effective (but not as powerful) IED from a tin can. Drill a hole in the bottom. Put the wires through it, into a detonator (even the caps from large caliber guns can work) fill it with gunpowder,(the book stresses "CAREFULLY" and shape a disk of copper, thickest at the middle, thinned out at the edges, and cover the top. Then wrap the damned thing in layers of thick cotton or linen, then put it in a larger can. That small amount of padding is enough to shape the charge enough to allow the copper to react as intended.

[Igel]

36. It's been pointed out in more than one place that

when you make the plate for the charge the material has to be sufficiently uniform, the right thickness/contour to form the appropriate shape, and the presence of defects on the edges will lead to fragmentation of the slug that is intended.

A tin can it ain't. You can make some that work very, very poorly. You can make some that work very, very well. Rather like using clay. Let's not assume that they're the same or the same techniques go into them, and that my ancient "pottery merit badge" book that shows how purify raw clay and bake it in a campfire produces Delftware, even if it is necessary to maintain the conceptual structures we base our self-identity and world-views on. Better to dispose of irreality-based thinking.

Now, there's leeway, to be sure, in machining plates--few things require a tolerance of 0%. But there are tolerances (feel free to Google, if you can wade through the mass of pages that don't do trivial distinctions like "effective" and "ineffective).

Similarly, people here are making the assumption that "EFP" = "shaped charge" = "IED". Since they're equal, the order of equivalence can be reversed, the poor thinking goes. But they're not equal, and this disposes of 99% of the argumentation on this point. Replace "=" with "is a subset of" and you nail it. The upshot is that you can't say that a generic "IED" is "shaped charge", because that's not a valid inference. You don't know if a given IED is a shaped charge unless you have details, facts. The presumed equivalence just leads you into a bog. Some IEDs are shaped charges; some shaped charges are also EFPs.

But this requires being not just being aware of nuance, of detail, but of actually possessing the information that none of us has, neither the Asian Times, nor me, nor you, information that's necessary to show what's up or not up.

All we're doing is the usual, "Well, maybe it's the case that they're not the same. They lie, after all. And since they *may not* be the same, we'll speculate that they *are* not the same. Since we've speculating they're not the same, we can further adduce they *must not* be the same, and we've proven that they're liars. Having proven that they're liars, we rest our case." Unfortunately, all it shows is the lack of an ability to understand modality and what a valid inference is.

/grump off

[ChairmanAgnostic]

29. I have in my hands the US Army 1963 manual on how to manufacture

IEDs, including those shaped charges intended to blow through armor.
This isn't exactly a secret anyplace in the world. Never has been. The idea that "special training" that is only available from Iran is pure bullshit. Being a 1963 volume, it lists four ways to detonate: radio, timer, tripwire, or electrical signal through a wire.

I am so tired of the US making shit up and lying its way into an Iran attack, especially with AIPAC's help.

[eridani]

47. Well, as a matter of fact Hez is NOT Iran

How do you account for the fact that 1/2 of its suicide bombers are from secular parties, and three are known Christians?

[JackORoses]

23. this is the usual response to a Hillary criticism...no attempt to defend her actions

only accusations that the other candidates are just as bad.

"but, but Obama does it, too"

Can't you just admit that she has no problem with attacking Iran?

We don't need another "War President".

[John Q. Citizen]

33. Hillary is a Hawk, pure and simple. Why can't you just acknowledge reality?

This is nothing new. Hillary has been a hawk forever.

Repeat after me, "Hillary is a Hawk!

There, that was easy.

[BringEmOn]

28. How dare you!

Yep, the ducks are quacking and waddling.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Alex, I'll take "She's auditioning for the folks who count the votes." for $500...

:shrug:

[jgraz]

15. DING DING DING We have a winnah

Hillary couldn't care less what you or I think of her. She's playing to the Corporate Media and her Corporate masters. She just has to look the part of a president while promising more of the same to all the hogs at the trough.

One thing Hillary is not is stupid. She saw through this whole Iran bullshit from the beginning. But she's going along with it cuz, hey, what's a few dead Persians when you have the chance to be the FIRST! WOMAN! PRESIDENT!...hmmm?

[robinlynne]

22. !

[TahitiNut]

26. Exactly.

Pimping for the cabal.

[rodeodance]

5. And WHY do you keep repeating the meme that she wants war with IRAN??

...why does she keep repeating these same lies the WH has manufactured for war with Iran? It is 2002 all over again.....

[w4rma]

6. So, you tell us why Hillary is repeating these same lies that the neocons have been repeating. (nt)

[rodeodance]

8. Has Hil repeated the WH meme?--is so. Please provide link:

[leftchick]

13. she does repeatedly

here is a nifty primer for those in denial about warmonger Hillary.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2134099

there are a lot of links in there for you to catch up on.

[leftchick]

16. Video: here she is warmongering at AIPAC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7tiEt_iguY

[sendero]

46. And AIPAC,...

... is the reason for the treason.

[jgraz]

17. She doesn't "want" it as much as she's willing to ""accept" it if it means she wins

That's my opinion, but everything she does or says seems to back it up.

[leftchick]

19. why Senator Clinton?

some questions for Hillary you will never see on TV....

http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=485&thisview=item

Why Senator Clinton?

We ask Clinton why she voted for an amendment that could be used as support for attacking Iran

2007-10-22

On September 26th, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She was the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted for the resolution.

"This isn't our present policy of keeping the military option on the table. It is, for all practical purposes, mandating the military option."

-Senator Jim Webb


Why do you ignore my links? Not to mention I see her on my TV accusing Iran of sending EFPs into Iraq to "kill our troops" a lot these days. Just like dick and bush.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Great link! Thanks for posting.

[leftchick]

38. I LOVE the real newa

check out the Pepe Escobar interviews too! :)

[leftchick]

20. more here....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/18/103532/98


Hillary vs. Pelosi on Iran
by Paul Hogarth
Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:42:07 AM PDT

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

While Hillary Clinton tries to spin herself out of the fact that she gave George Bush the green light to invade Iran, Nancy Pelosi has worked to put the brakes on this reckless adventure. The House Speaker said she will not let the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution come to a vote on the House floor, pointing out the unprecedented move of declaring a whole foreign army a “terrorist organization.” Once again, the first woman Speaker and (possibly) the first woman President are on opposite sides of the neo-con agenda – like in 2002, when Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution while Pelosi rallied her House colleagues against it. While history has proven Pelosi right, AIPAC and the neo-con cabal are bracing for another pre-emptive War with Iran – a larger country than Iraq whose U.S. occupation would create even worse consequences.

* Paul Hogarth's diary :: ::
*

Under fire from her rivals for the presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton has in recent weeks argued that she only voted for Kyl-Lieberman after some of the more extreme language was removed. The Resolution as passed, said Clinton, gives the United States “leverage when we negotiate with Iran” – who she says is improperly meddling with our occupation of Iraq.

But while Kyl-Lieberman in its original form was more bellicose, the fact remains that Clinton voted (a) to declare the Iranian army a “terrorist organization,” which (b) allows the President to pursue them in accordance with the existing “War on Terror.” With Bush in the White House, that’s way too much leeway for the Senate to give.

If the Iranian army is now a “terrorist” organization, how does this help our negotiating leverage with Iran? Isn’t it a recognized policy not to negotiate with terrorists? Wouldn’t this further antagonize Iran who we are told repeatedly is itching for a fight?

But on October 14th, Pelosi said on ABC’s “This Week” that she would not allow Kyl-Lieberman to come to a vote on the House floor because of how unprecedented the Senate’s action was. “It has never happened before that a Congress should determine one piece of someone’s military a threat,” said Pelosi. “If a problem to us and our troops in Iraq, we should deal with it in Iraq.”

Like Kyl-Lieberman, the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 had no historic precedent

[Peace Patriot]

7. You've got to understand that Hillary is a candidate for Holy Roman Emperor and

you don't get to be Holy Roman Emperor by challenging the one, universal, apostolic, only begotten, ex cathedra-speaking, anathematizing, witch-burning, heresy-slaying, women-need-not-apply, God is a Prick Roman Catholic Church and its most Holy Inquisition...

...oops, wrong millenium...

[rox63]

9. But will this ever appear in the American press?

I won't hold my breath...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. This has to be kicked (and of course recommended)!!!!! eom

[dogman]

21. Who sponsors and trains Hezbollah?

Reportedly the Quds Force does. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

[High Plains]

24. Who trains and sponsors the IDF?

Who trains and sponsors Sunni militias in Iraq?

Who has invaded the countries bordering Iran to the west and the east?

Who is a state sponsor of terrorism? Don't look in the mirror.

[leftchick]

34. heh!

:thumbsup:

[dogman]

35. Having what to do with the OP?

If this is your cause start a thread on the subject. You haven't given information about the involvement or non-involvement of Iran. Whether they are justified was not the point of the OP as presented. I think they would be justified from their place in w's fiasco, and that leads me to believe they are. The OP seems to deny that likelihood.

[Jim Sagle]

41. The IDF RRRRRAWWWWWWXXXXXX!!!!!!!!

Without the IDF, there would be several million more dead Jews. Any questions?

[Roland99]

40. I don't there's much doubt that Iran is tight with Hizb'allah *but*...how does that affect the US??

When has Hizb'allah attacked the US (at least since the '83 bombing in Lebanon or the '96 Khobar Towers attack - and do we have solid proof of either of those)?



And, if so, is it really worth attacking/invading Iran?

[formercia]

32. We gave this technology to the anti-soviet insurgents

in Afghanistan in the early eighties.They used them with great effect against Soviet armor. I doubt if they forgot how to make them since then. And oh, by the way, some of these same insurgents we trained are now members of AlQ.

Once you let the genie out of the bottle...

[Roland99]

39. So, who's the new Feith and what's the new OSP? The WINEP?

[AzDar]

42. K & R....

:kick:

[watrwefitinfor]

43. I'm sorry, but it hasn't blown up in anybody's face

until it's all over the evening news.
Or CNN. Or the morning shows.

It just hasn't.

Wat.

[cartach]

44. Shaped charges?

Was that what the Chimp was experimenting with when he used to shove firecrackers up frogs' asses and then lit them? That was way over 50 years ago.He's probably the resident expert on such matters over at the White House and responsible for the initial accusation.I can just see everyone at the Cabinet meeting nodding and smirking in agreeement as George expounds on the subject.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

48. The telegraph article states that the insurgents have perfected the

design and then goes on to say

"British military sources believe the devices have been developed in Iran and smuggled across the border into Iraq where they are supplied to Iranian-backed anti-coalition insurgents."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/25/wirq225.xml

A source from the American military, who has been working closely with British scientists, said that the insurgents have perfected the design of the weapon and know exactly where to place it to ensure maximum damage to coalition vehicles.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0116-08.htm

Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained why the story line blaming Iran for the IED problem in Iraq didn't hold water. "A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network," he told Associated Press. "What works in one country gets known elsewhere."

The Blair government soon dropped that propaganda line. The Independent reported Jan. 5, 2006 that government officials acknowledged privately that there was no "reliable intelligence" connecting the Iranian government to the more powerful IEDs in the south.

http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=10339

The previous pattern had been that U.S. and British officials suggest that Iranian government involvement in the use by Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias of "shaped charges" that can penetrate U.S. armored vehicles is the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the facts. But when asked point blank, they admit that they have no evidence to support it.

That charge serves not just one administration objective but two: it provides an additional justification for aggressive rhetoric and pressures against Tehran and also suggests that Iran bears much of the blame for the sectarian violence in Baghdad and high levels of U.S. casualties from IEDs.