EFP = USD 30

The truth is that EFPs are simple to make for anyone who knows how to do it. Far from a sophisticated assembly operation that might require state supervision, all that is required is one of those disks, some high-powered explosive (which is easy to procure in Iraq) and a container, such as a piece of pipe. I asked a Pentagon analyst specializing in such devices how much each one would cost to make. "Twenty bucks," he answered after a brief calculation. "Thirty at most."

Weapon-vs-Armor, round bazillion

[peacefinder]

I remember reading about EFPs several months ago. I recall that I had considered writing a JE on 'em, but apparently I didn't. Or maybe I wrote a comment on it? Ah, there [slashdot.org] we go... eglamkowski journaled on 'em in August. I called EFP's the new Panzerfaust in a comment.

The discovery of a batch of mass-produced penetrators is bad, bad news.

Re:

[zogger]

if it speeds up the end of the war, why is it bad news? If the goons realize that invading a population, and having no care to "collateral damage", results in losing, because committed cheap low tech on home turf by indigenous patriots and fighters beats high tech aggression by invaders, the long term historical perspective for all humans, collectively speaking, is-don't be an invader, it's bad mojo.

This situation is really heart wrenching, to me anyway it is.

On the one hand, you feel for inv

Re:

[peacefinder]

"if it speeds up the end of the war, why is it bad news?"

Our guys dying. Is this not obvious?

Anyway, it won't end the war sooner. It might end US involvement sooner, but the war will likely continue.

Re:

[iminplaya]

I believe the emphasis is on the word "end". When the war ends, or the sooner we leave, our guys won't be dying. I think "the sooner the better" applies here.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[iminplaya]

That's kind of a long winded description of what amounts to monkeys flinging their poo at each other, don't you think?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[zogger]

or.."fecetious" to get the spelling closer.

I'll have to wait to reply to your real post, just did a long one on TN and need to get back to work.

for now-just ask yourself-who profits? And then ask yourself-for the government fairy tale to be true, because you need that as a full belief to analyse it "that way", you need to also swallow two more *things*. OBL and crew would have HAD to have the political juice to get the normal NORAD hijacked planes action plan *canceled*, because they certainly didn't do ANY

Re:

[iminplaya]

Because once you take away all the phoney philosophizing and "justifications" from all this, that's exactly what it is. It's no different from that, or yapping dogs, or battling army ants. What we are doing is The History Channel's versin of Nat Geo's "Built for the Kill". Like the song says, We're doing it like they do on the Discovery channel. Of course the song was about creating life, not destroying it. We are acting just as primatively as any other lifeform. It's no different from any other "gang war"

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[iminplaya]

I'm trying to say it isn't important who's doing it. Whether it's Bush, OBL, Napoleon, that guy from Austria, you name it, it doesn't matter. Your talking about today's piracy like it's somehow different from all that in the past. I honestly don't don't care anymore who's protecting whom. One racket is the same as the other. From my point of view all I see is crap flying all around. The "reasons are absolutely meaningless. Everybody claims the moral high ground when nobody has it. It's bullshit no matter wh

Re:

[iminplaya]

Sorry to reply twice, but going back to your original post...

...because it doesn't really explain why it was done the way it was done, with no apparent end-game, no serious long term planning...

Couldn't be simpler

1) Create "enemy"
2) Hire "enemy" to attack
3) Make war on somebody, anybody, to create illusion of taking action. Remember, war is good business. Otherwise the arms industry wouldn't be doing so well.
4) Profit!

Do we really care who's doing it? I mean, other than the fact that it's the guy we put in

Re:

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The Administration is trying to link these to Iran, claiming state sponsorship is required for the manufacture.

There was a NYT article - with no attributions - asserting this case. It was penned by Judy Miller's co-author on the "Steel Tubes" article about Iraq and centrifuges.

This pretty much seals the argument that this is another intelligence "plant" in the media, with no factual basis.