http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9cc4d5f4-2be3-11dc-b498-000b5df10621.html

And this is news to some people?

lol no they dont

Iran--Shiite power, fighting american terrorists and israeli terrorists
alqueda--stupid terrorist that kill innocent people (im glad america is fighting them)

they dont connect

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9cc4d5f4-2be...b5df10621.html Nothing in there about Iran aiding AQ. Don't you even read your own links?
Analysts say several Sunni extremist groups, some presumed linked to al-Qaeda and from various ethnic groups including Kurds, are in Iran. US-led military action in Iraq has led some to seek refuge over the border.

In the past, Tehran has also been a target of al-Qaeda attacks. A militant Sunni group based in Pakistan and possibly linked to al-Qaeda was suspected of the 1994 bombing of the shrine of the seventh Shia Imam, Reza, in Mashhad, killing 26 people.

Iran has also shown growing concern over Jundullah, a radical Sunni group from the restive south-east area of Balucestan that has carried out violent attacks in recent years.
Apparently the US has driven some AQ into Iran, and Iran can't or won't do much about them.

As far as actually aiding AQ-linked Sunni in and near Iran, the US has done more of that than Iran has.

The US gave money and support to the Sunni in Baluchistan, with the expectation that they would attack Iran. Instead, they teamed up with AQ and launched attacks against US "allies" in Pakistan.

The US has also given money and support to AQ linked Sunni (such as Fatah)in Lebanon, expecting them to attack Hezbollah, with similarly negative results.

The US has supported various Kurdish Sunni terrorists - possibly AQ linked, being Sunni and terrorist - that have made trouble for Iran (and Turkey, et al).

And so forth.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9cc4d5f4-2be3-11dc-b498-000b5df10621.html

You're a journalist?:confused: :rolleyes:

So providing someone with a safe haven from US troops isn't aiding and abetting them?

So providing someone with a safe haven from US troops isn't aiding and abetting them?

You mean like this?

U.S. Arming Sunni Insurgents in Iraq

NY Times | June 11, 2007
JOHN F. BURNS and ALISSA J. RUBIN

With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

or like this?



Recent revelations illustrating the fact that the U.S. government is using a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 to carry out bombings in Iran undermines the entire war on terror as a monumental hoax that is being exploited purely to realize a geopolitical agenda.

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."

"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported yesterday.

Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror.

How does arming Sunnis to fight terrorists and working to depose a problematic regime relate to allowing terrorists a safe haven?

Because for sam it is always Americas fault, even the craphole she lives in some how America is at fault for that.

So providing someone with a safe haven from US troops isn't aiding and abetting them? There is nothing in that article to indicate that Iran is "providing" anything - nothing of fact, argument, or evidence at least. There is some innuendo and suggestion.

Any more than Saddam "provided" safe haven for AQ in the No Fly Zone during the blockade - when the US was bombing at will in Iraq, but the AQ camps were never bombed - for some reason.

Iran would need cooperation from the US to do anything about the situation along its border. Iran certainly cannot station large numbers of soldiers there, or launch attacks by air, or pursue AQ into Iraq, without coordinating with the US.

How does arming Sunnis to fight terrorists and working to depose a problematic regime relate to allowing terrorists a safe haven?

Sunni insurgents vs Sunni militants? How can you tell which is which?

There is nothing in that article to indicate that Iran is "providing" anything - nothing of fact, argument, or evidence at least. There is some innuendo and suggestion.

Any more than Saddam "provided" safe haven for AQ in the No Fly Zone during the blockade - when the US was bombing at will in Iraq, but the AQ camps were never bombed - for some reason.

Iran would need cooperation from the US to do anything about the situation along its border. Iran certainly cannot station large numbers of soldiers there, or launch attacks by air, or pursue AQ into Iraq, without coordinating with the US.

I love your version of History,

Any more than Saddam "provided" safe haven for AQ in the No Fly Zone during the blockade - when the US was bombing at will in Iraq, but the AQ camps were never bombed - for some reason.

Show were we ever bombed a site in Iraq after the cease fire that wasn't a military target involved in shooting, and launching Missiles at Coalition Aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone?

In the areas not covered by the no-fly zone we didn't attack anything, and Saddam played games to his hearts content there, and he never met the U.N. mandated requirement of having U.N. inspectors at the destruction sites so that the destruction of his WMD's could be properly verified.

And just look at what you just stated,

Any more than Saddam "provided" safe haven for AQ in the No Fly Zone during the blockade

Why couldn't he have done so, the only thing that the coalition forces were making sure of was that Saddam didn't use his airforce in the areas of the no-fly zone, we never stopped him from controlling the ground in the no-fly zone, on the ground he still maintained authority.

The US is presently arming Sunni insurgents in Iraq and Iran. Don't have to look further than that for terrorism. Both are Shia majority states; the US action can ONLY lead to civil war, no matter what baloney they cover it with.

The US is presently arming Sunni insurgents in Iraq and Iran. Don't have to look further than that for terrorism. Both are Shia majority states; the US action can ONLY lead to civil war, no matter what baloney they cover it with.


So we kill them all and let Allah sort it out, oh wait the Terrorist are already doing that, and it wouldn't be fair to arm people who come to our side to fight the Foreign Islamic Terrorist Fighters that are killing more Iraqis than they are Americans, just maybe the Iraqis Sunni and Shia, are tired of seeing their so called Islamic Jihadi liberator killing the people of Iraq in numbers greater than anything that the U.S. ever did, and the fact that when they really look at it they see that the al Quaida thugs use the Iraqi civilians with no remorse as to the deaths and causalities in attacking the Americans when they can find the time to stop killing Iraqis. After all the Blood calls out and the terrorist are spilling the Blood of the Iraqi People, so the Blood price must be paid.

There is nothing in that article to indicate that Iran is "providing" anything - nothing of fact, argument, or evidence at least. There is some innuendo and suggestion.

I admit the article lacks facts beyond testimony. There aren't any Iranian intelligence officials caught in Iraq, for example, something I'm sure you're aware has actually happened? Still, I can't help but think if the "innuendo and suggestion" were directed the other way, Ice, you'd be all over it claiming it was the God's honest truth. But I digress.

To me, allowing Al Qaeda to set up bases in Iran (or not preventing them from doing so) seems like the Iranians are "providing" something. They're providing a refuge. The fact this requires no positive action on their part doesn't negate the problem with doing it. Or are you unfamiliar with the terms harboring or aiding and abetting?

To me, allowing Al Qaeda to set up bases in Iran (or not preventing them from doing so) seems like the Iranians are "providing" something. They're providing a refuge. There is no evidence - not even testimony - that Iran is "allowing" AQ to operate from Iranian refuge.

How could the Iranians prevent AQ from operating near their border with Iraq? Airstrikes along the Iraq border? Large military operations on the Iraqi border?

What Iran cannot prevent is not something Iran is "allowing".

The facts support a different take: the US seems to be providing the AQ refuges in Iran, just as the US provided AQ refuges in Iraq during the blockade, by preventing the Iranian government from doing anything about them.

Qaeda is "Qods Force" and Khamenei's Sunni competition. Remember class, Iran supports Shi'a factions like Hezb'ollah in feuds against their Sunni cousins all across the Mideast. Shi'a and Sunni are competing for power in almost every Arab country, and in several of them there are reversals of fortune underway.

Strange how the most obvious parts of basic Mideast politics 101 are so grievously misunderestimated. It's like when the Dubya suddenly realized after getting bogged down in the occupation of Iraq what had happend: "hehe.. How can you tell when the veep's gay? hehe... Dick tastes like shiite." People who think that Qaeda and Khamenei are in league are dumber than Dubya.

OK, let's imagine countries A and B waging war on each other. USA is supplying arms to the country A (happened not once, not twice, many dozen times). I guess by the logic of Americans, the country B have all rights to shoot a few hundreds of missiles at Washington and kill few hundreds thousands of Americans. OK, stop, I've forgot that Americans and USA are above the common "logic", they measure right and wrong only with respect themselves, they are Gods, they are center of Universe.

People who think that Qaeda and Khamenei are in league are dumber than Dubya.

But its nice to be ignorant. Positively blissful. :bawl:

All I did was post a story from a reputable news source. The story is what it is, and let's be clear about what it says. Here's the first three graphs for those of you who think there is no "evidence" or "testimony" about the link:

"Evidence that Iranian territory is being used as a base by al-Qaeda to help in terrorist operations in Iraq and elsewhere is growing, say western officials. It is not clear how much the al-Qaeda operation, described by one official as a money and communications hub, is being tolerated or encouraged by the Iranian government, they said. The group’s operatives, who link the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan with their disciples in Iraq, the Levant and North Africa, move with relative freedom in the country, they said."

So, according to this story, AQ are there, they have hubs there and move with freedom in a restrictive country. Whether this is with the consent of the Iranians or not, the article does not say or speculate. But it says they are there.

Sunnis are beating coppers plates into EFPs. They have lots of high explosives, made in the USA and sold to Saddam in shiploads. And the most important not-to-forget -- They're not stupid. Iranians for copper? We don't need no steenking Iranians, copper
They can fuck us up all by themselves. For generations if necessary. Congratulations, Neocons! You just won your grandkids a grubby, angry new Palestine!

All I did was post a story from a reputable news source. A story which, by including counterfactual innuendo and slanted presentation as "news", should color somewhat the reputation of that "reputable" news source.

Reputable is as reputable does, eh ? Nowhere in that story is there the slightest allowance for the most obvious possibilities, the ones that would be continuations of recent past events rather than new and unusual twists, the factors that any responsible reporter would include among their questions and considerations - that AQ has set up shop in an area in which either

1) neither of its two enemies - the US or Iran - can do much about it. That the US demonization of Iran, and refusal of ordinary diplomatic relations and cooperations, and belligerant military behavior along the border, coupled with Iran's vulnerability and domestic political concerns, has created a refuge for AQ in Iran similar to the refuges AQ enjoyed in Iraq under the No Fly Zone.

or

2) the US finds AQ bases in Iran convenient, in the ongoing propaganda war against Iran and the search for justifications for the long-prepared air assault.

These are neither of them necessarily so. But neither of them can be left out of a news report that includes innuendo of Iran "aiding" AQ, if a news source is to maintain "reputability". That article is propaganda.

The story is what it is, and let's be clear about what it says. Let's also be clear about what you claimed it said, which was that Iran was aiding AQ. That was the innuendo in it - the part that should cast doubt on the reporter's skill or motives. You took that innuendo as news from a "reputable" source.

Sunnis are beating coppers plates into EFPs. They have lots of high explosives, made in the USA and sold to Saddam in shiploads. And the most important not-to-forget -- They're not stupid.
They can fuck us up all by themselves. For generations if necessary. Congratulations, Neocons! You just won your grandkids a grubby, angry new Palestine!

Do you know why they are called EFP? and do you know the exacting precision in machining of the explosive charge that is required to make a EFP work, and the special fusing to make the explosives convert into the proper shaped jet to form the EFP, and you think they can make these with a hammer, drill and a block of explosives? Just Pitiful hype, just pitiful,

The thread topic uses the word "aiding," because I was too lazy to change it after I typed it. But yes, in my subjective opinion I would say Iran is operating under the enemy of my enemy paradigm and providing a helping hand or two to the folks who are destabilizing the country that borders them (and in the process embarrassing the US). They want America out of Iraq (for obvious reasons) and the best way to make that happen is to provide whatever help they can to the terrorists inside Iraq causing havoc.

As for the article being "propaganda," as I've written elsewhere, I'm through arguing sources with you. I posted the story because I thought it was interesting and would enable debate. I also posted it because The Financial Times is a highly respected newspaper, regardless of what you, in all your infinite (and at this point unqualified) wisdom, think of it. But if it will make you feel better, feel free to post your usual slanted news sources with little or no reputation in order to "win" whatever argument is occurring here and look "good" in the process.

I find it interesting you also seem to be taking up for Iran, too. Interesting, but not beyond what I've learned to expect from you.

iceaura

1) neither of its two enemies - the US or Iran - can do much about it. That the US demonization of Iran, and refusal of ordinary diplomatic relations and cooperations, and belligerant military behavior along the border, coupled with Iran's vulnerability and domestic political concerns, has created a refuge for AQ in Iran similar to the refuges AQ enjoyed in Iraq under the No Fly Zone.

Iran, well they broke off diplomatic relations with us when they invaded our embassy, to invade a Embassy is considered a act of war, and Jimmy Carter was such a wuss that all he did was shake in his boots and the Military which had been gelded by the democrats after Vietnam didn't have the equipment and personnel to react properly, and we looked like emasculated fools with Carters ineptitude, 444 days and all Carter did was suck his thumb and leave us with the beginnings of the Terrorist problems we have today.

Do you know why they are called EFP? and do you know the exacting precision in machining of the explosive charge that is required to make a EFP work, and the special fusing to make the explosives convert into the proper shaped jet to form the EFP, and you think they can make these with a hammer, drill and a block of explosives? There is plenty of weaponry making skill and equipment available throughout Iraq, most of it unemployed since Bremer purged the skilled labor force.

There are also plenty of international market sources for the purchase of such weapons or parts (including no doubt some Iranian ones, as well as the usual Syrian, Israeli, Pakistani, Turkish, Russian, etc etc etc possibilities).

Besides, weren't you saying something about these things being rigged from WMDs made by Saddam?
I also posted it because The Financial Times is a highly respected newspaper, regardless of what you, in all your infinite (and at this point unqualified) wisdom, think of it. The point is not that the Financial Times is not a respected paper. The point is that the article itself appears to be obviously slanted propaganda and should be discussed in the light of that appearance.

The point is not that the Financial Times is not a respected paper. The point is that the article itself appears to be obviously slanted propaganda and should be discussed in the light of that appearance.

Right. They bowed down to that vast right-wing conspiracy, eh? Seriously, there's no point in talking with you if you can't agree on accepting seriously any of the material contained in any of the news stories I post. Especially, when you attack them with nothing more than your own subjective opinion. That is, you have no way of knowing the article is "slanted" or is "propaganda" beyond the fact it doesn't agree with your beliefs and understanding of the situation. So thanks for disrupting another thread with your same tired bag of tricks...

That is, you have no way of knowing the article is "slanted" or is "propaganda" beyond the fact it doesn't agree with your beliefs and understanding of the situation. But I do. I can, and you can, and anyone can, read the thing and see a pattern in its deviations from ordinary balanced approach and responsible journalism.

We can also compare the thing with what we all know about the situation - not a particular view, but common knowledge. The Saudi Sunni and the Iraqi Shia are usually enemies, for example. That AQ had a safe haven in the No Fly Zone during the blockade. That Iran cannot station its army or run military oprations on the Iraq border without risking severe repercussions. And so forth

And so "we" did, above. And found a pattern in the article that resembled closely waht we would expect from a US administration propaganda effort, rather than responsible journalism.

This does not prove bias. It may just be lack of skill or alertness on the part of the journalist. Everyone has a bad or lazy day, and I imagine every journalist gets played by PR reps once in a while. But the slant can't be simply overlooked, or treated as if absent, just because that paper has a good reputation in general.
Seriously, there's no point in talking with you if you can't agree on accepting seriously any of the material contained in any of the news stories I post. You first. The thread topic uses the word "aiding," because I was too lazy to change it after I typed it

But I do. I can, and you can, and anyone can, read the thing and see a pattern in its deviations from ordinary balanced approach and responsible journalism.

You mean anyone who agrees with you and takes your own subjective view of the situation.

We can also compare the thing with what we all know about the situation - not a particular view, but common knowledge. The Saudi Sunni and the Iraqi Shia are usually enemies, for example. That AQ had a safe haven in the No Fly Zone during the blockade. That Iran cannot station its army or run military oprations on the Iraq border without risking severe repercussions. And so forth.

Who is "we all?" You mean, you? I gave you my argument for why the Iranians would have a reason to work with AQ. You've ignored it so you can attack the story that started this whole discussion.

And so "we" did, above. And found a pattern in the article that resembled closely what we would expect from a US administration propaganda effort, rather than responsible journalism.

You found a pattern. So far as I can see, no one else has. And your pigheaded refusal to recognize your pattern-finding as your own opinion and subjective judgments is the most tiresome intellectual escapade on this site. You think it smells like propaganda, so you claim it is. You have no proof of either. You just think so.

This does not prove bias. It may just be lack of skill or alertness on the part of the journalist. Everyone has a bad or lazy day, and I imagine every journalist gets played by PR reps once in a while. But the slant can't be simply overlooked, or treated as if absent, just because that paper has a good reputation in general.

Again, you've played this game in the last three threads I've started where I've posted stories (attack the source, because it doesn't match your preconceived notion of reality). The threads get derailed and we end up arguing about the veracity of the news story. I tire of that game, don't you?

Regardless, you really are going on ignore this time. Have fun talking to yourself about your superior knowledge, understanding and analysis of the news business...

The threads get derailed and we end up arguing about the veracity of the news story. No, we don't. You have refused, repeatedly, to examine the "veracity of the news story", or the legitimacy of your derived assertions, or tha validity of my objections to either. The threads are not "derailed" into that, but into irrelevant commentary on my arrogance, subjectivity, lack of expertise, etc.
You think it smells like propaganda, so you claim it is. You have no proof of either. You just think so. No proof, but plenty of argument and specific observation, direct comparison, etc. For example, I point out that this latest article, here, is missing major and unavoidable aspects of its alleged subject (I specified two) and supplying innuendo under cover of "news" (only asking about Iran's support of AQ, for example). That is an obvious slant in the article, and reason for suspecting that it is a propaganda feed, of a type we are all familiar with by now. It is not me "just thinking", it is observation and argument from evidence.

Which you have had on ignore from the beginning, so this won't change much except the noise factor.

Sunnis are beating coppers plates into EFPs. They have lots of high explosives, made in the USA and sold to Saddam in shiploads. And the most important not-to-forget -- They're not stupid.

Buffalo Roam: "Do you know why they are called EFP?"

Explosively-Formed Penetrator.

..."and do you know the exacting precision in machining of the explosive charge that is required to make a EFP work"

Um, yes: You make a copper bowl, you can hammer out several hundred a day over a simple form with a mallet. There is no exacting machining required. The shock wave from an easily shaped charge does most of the "machining" work, squirting a molten rod of copper when the weapon is fired.


"and the special fusing to make the explosives convert into the proper shaped jet to form the EFP"

A blasting cap works fine, as do the many munitions fuses available all over Iraq. There's no special or complex fusing necessary. The charge needs to be shaped, and there are plastic funnels commonly available with a conic shape that works just fine. Last little bit of knowledge is head height: What distance to have between the copper bowl or liner and the charge. This information is easy to pass along, or determine through simple trial-and-error. Common water-pipe serves fine as casing. There's nothing exotic or difficult about EFPs. You really can knock out an Abrams tank for pocket-change, BR.

More Discussion of EFPs (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63235)

"and you think they can make these with a hammer, drill and a block of explosives?"

Yes.http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Dec04/Images/MN0407fig1.gif

"Just Pitiful hype, just pitiful

hypewaders

Um, yes: You make a copper bowl, you can hammer out several hundred a day over a simple form with a mallet. There is no exacting machining required. The shock wave from an easily shaped charge does most of the "machining" work, squirting a molten rod of copper when the weapon is fired.

Just plain copper? the projectile is just plain old copper? Yes hype, I am afraid to inform you the projectile is not just plain copper, sorry hype but the projectile in a EFP isn't just plain old copper, and it isn't molten when it hits the target, plus the projectile must be a the optimum distance from the surface of the target when it is formed to achieve proper penetration, and this is accomplished by the fuse, and that is a precision operation to make sure that the fuses detonates the projectile at the proper distance in the milliseconds necessary at the speeds of the projectile, you may have been a Infallible Submariner, your opinion, but I was a Tanker, my job was the destruction of enemy armor, and I went through the Master Gunner School, and all of this was part of the curriculum of the course, the most effective use of a EFP is from above, because of the thinner armor.


Now for all of the work that they do how do they deliver the round to the target?, the U.S. Military uses Bombs, Cannons and Artillery, the terrorist have to use it as a IED, which means that the target must approach the FEP IED, and must be in the proper position and at the Proper distance for the IEDEFP to be effective, yes the detonation can cause some damage to personnel expose outside the vehicle, but in most cases the armored vehicle and the crew inside are not damaged beyond continuing operational capabilities, now for soft skinned vehicles and lightly armored vehicles plain old high order explosive work just as well.

Yawn

CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel

Last Sunday, the Bush administration finally presented its long-delayed intelligence briefing on Iranian arms shipments into Iraq. Prior to the presentation, a U.S. official told the New York Times that it had been delayed because they were “trying to scrub” the intelligence, adding “the last thing we want to be accused of is cherry-picking.”

While much of the information had previously been known, the highlight of the presentation — as reported by ABC World News — was that it was “the first time military officials…made the link to the highest level of Iran’s government.” But the briefing “offered no evidence” to substantiate that claim. After coming under intense scrutiny for an intelligence presentation that was approved by the highest levels of the administration, the White House has slowly backed off its claims of Iranian government involvement.

Today, CNN reported that the White House is now blaming the anonymous intelligence briefer who presented the information. According to CNN’s Ed Henry, the White House says the anonymous intelligence briefer went “a little too far” in stating the evidence. But, as Henry said, “that begs the question why the administration has taken so long to clarify those comments.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/15/blaming-the-briefer/

http://photos1.blogger.com/photoInclude/x/blogger/3543/667/1600/227638/EPFcompare.jpg


Speaking of surprises, Centcom commander Adm. Fox Fallon doesn't agree that the Iranian government has been supplying Iraq's EFPs. He's not alone. Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace, on the other hand, seemed to back away from his previous, doubting statements -- at least a little. More here.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003285.html

Let the war of frivolous links commence!

Just plain copper? the projectile is just plain old copper? Yes hype, I am afraid to inform you the projectile is not just plain copper, sorry hype but the projectile in a EFP isn't just plain old copper, and it isn't molten when it hits the target, plus the projectile must be a the optimum distance from the surface of the target when it is formed to achieve proper penetration, and this is accomplished by the fuse, and that is a precision operation to make sure that the fuses detonates the projectile at the proper distance You appear to be thinking about artillery shells or similar minitions. The EFPs in Iraq are roadside bombs, which do not require proximity fuses or fancy timing devices - just a triggering device, when the target gets close.
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0407/analysis/analysis-070407.htm
A conventional shaped charge has a generally conical metal liner projecting a hypervelocity jet of metal plasma capable of penetrating into thick armor steel; however, as the jet breaks up into particles drifting out of alignment, these greatly diminish the weapon's effectiveness fired from longer range.

In contrast, an (EFP) has an outside liner in the shape of a shallow dish. On detonating the explosive, the liner is transformed into a compact, aerodynamically shaped body of metal, normally remaining intact and is therefore able to penetrate armor at long range.
- - -
In June 2005, General John R. Vines, then the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, told news reporters that the Iraqi insurgents had probably drawn on the new version of what was later known as explosively formed projectile, bomb-making expertise from former Saddam Hussein's army depots. But a Pentagon official involved in combating the new IEDs told the New York Times that the first such bombs examined by the U.S. military had required considerable expertise, and that well-trained former government specialists were probably involved in making them.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm

- - -
It is universally agreed that conical liner collapse and target penetration both occur by hydrodynamic flow. However, it has been established by X-ray diffraction that the jet is solid metal and not molten. Additionally, best estimates of jet temperature by incandescence colour suggest a mean value of about 450°C, and copper melts at 1083°C at atmospheric pressure. So the following conundrum is the first confusion: The jet appears to behave like a fluid, and yet it is known to be a solid. One recent theory that would help explain this is that the jet has a molten core but with a solid outer sheath.

You appear to be thinking about artillery shells or similar minitions. The EFPs in Iraq are roadside bombs, which do not require proximity fuses or fancy timing devices - just a triggering device, when the target gets close.
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0407/analysis/analysis-070407.htm


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm


Why are you responding about something you don't know your a$$ from a hole in the ground about, the IEDs are still the same a loud bang, and the supposed EFP's IED are not any more dangerous than the old IED's if you are in their kill/damage zone you get hurt, if the Target isn't in the kill/damage zone it is a loud noise,

Buffalo Roam: "Just plain copper? the projectile is just plain old copper? Yes hype, I am afraid to inform you the projectile is not just plain copper, sorry hype but the projectile in a EFP isn't just plain, old copper"

It's plain, old copper.http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/lt_efp_discs2.jpg

The way copper gets recycled through the centuries, some of this may have been in the shield of one of your philistine forebears.

You can make them out of wire, old generators, all kinds of junk. Copper both melts and anneals easy too: Kids can and do make these plates. They've been making this kid of thing around here for a while- like, since Alexander came and went. Now they're just making them less ornate, simpler, and thicker, combining some local fireworks, and you have a home-made concealable tank-buster. Get a clue.

http://www.defense-update.com/images/efp_ied.jpg

This image shows an example of how crudely the projectile disc can be made.

Here's the US M303 (http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1629/They_Say_EFP_We_Say_SOFDK), for comparison with factory-built.

BTW AP: Iraq al-Qaida group threatens Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_qaida_1)

BTW AP: Iraq al-Qaida group threatens Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_qaida_1)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69079

cricket... cricket :yawn:

So there's two news stories out there with contrary opinions? That's fine. I posted one, someone else beat me to the punch and posted the other...

So there's two news stories out there with contrary opinions? They don't have contrary facts.

Your issue isn't with me, it's with the people who wrote the stories and the material they based them on, neither of which, I care to discuss with you.

countezero: "So there's two news stories out there with contrary opinions? That's fine."

Not just contrary opinions. You've been shown that the situation is contrary to any suggestion of Iran aiding the multiplying McQaeda franchises. It has been clearly shown why an alliance between Iran and al-Qaeda is ludicrous. These two entitites do not share the same goals whenever things get beyond the most general of rhetoric. These 2 are rivals, and their respective followers are bitter blood enemies, now going toe-to-toe all across the Mideast. It's true that both are happy to diminish the hegemony of the USA in the Mideast, but that doesn't make them allies.

The Shi'a are the majority, but even so they have been the underclass, repressed, culturally, and economically insulted all along the wealth-drenched Gulf region. Sunni terrorists, Sunni terrorist supporters, Sunni nationalists, Sunni supporters of existing governments, all fear a Shi'a revolt, and a cascade of Shi'a revolutions in the Gulf States and Eastern Province of Arabia.

Just as neocon plans for reshaping Iraq in US interests were impaired by ignorance leading to unpleasant situations, ignorance about the spreading Sunni-Shi'a conflict will impair an understanding of what is going on globally, and cause still more predictable but nasty "surprises" for the unobservant.

"Your issue isn't with me, it's with the people who wrote the stories and the material they based them on, neither of which, I care to discuss with you."

My issue is with you. You are in denial about the reality of Sunni and Shi'a alignments, and what the implications of these differences are regarding both counterterrorism and military interventionism. It isn't a benign denial. It's a form of denial has been infectious enough to be dangerous to the future of the United States.