Crocodile's Lament

Flying by the seat of my pants

Posts filed under Military Issues

Two terrorists behead a British soldier on a London street

 Two as yet unidentified Muslin terrorists chanting Allahu Akbar assaulted a British soldier on a street close to the Royal Barracks at Woolwich in southeast London, shot him, hacked him with knives and a machete and finally beheaded him. This happened in broad daylight Wednesday afternoon, May 22, in the presence of dozens of witnesses, the first such outrage seen in a West European capital.

Witnesses told the police that the two terrorists covered in blood had held up body parts of their victim and shouted: “We swear by Allah never to stop killing you.”
British TV stations are airing gruesome scenes of the episode.

The terrorists drove up to their victim in a car, jumped out and after the murder wandered about in the area, apparently lying in wait for more soldiers to come out of the Royal Artillery command barracks 400 meters from the scene of their attack. 

www.jsmineset.com (May 22, 2013)

Posted in Military Issues, Terrorism
One Comment »

Benghazigate: General: Delta Force Could Have Gone In…

 

Another part of the Benghazi story has also come under fire: the claim that no military rescuers were sent in because there wasn’t time to get them there . . .

On my Fox News show Saturday, I interviewed retired Lt. General William Boykin, the former commander of Delta Forces. He knows more than just about anyone about the deployment and capabilities of our elite rescue troops. The Pentagon timeline shows that over 7-1/2 hours passed between the first attack and the deaths of the former Navy SEALS who were holding off the attackers. Gen. Boykin estimated that we could’ve had a jet there to at least scare the attackers within 2 to 3 hours, and boots on the ground within 5 to 6 hours. As for the argument that the rescue mission might’ve been too dangerous, well…that’s what Navy SEALS do. Gen. Boykin says it’s the philosophy of the US military that you never abandon your people, even if all you can do is go in and recover their bodies. As for the excuses for why that order never came, he called them “incredible.”

SOURCE: http://mikehuckabee.com/today-s-commentary

Posted in America's slide, Benghazigate, Middle East, Military Issues, Radical Islam, Terrorism
No Comments »

The Truth is Seeping To The Surface

 

Congresswoman: Obama Gave Benghazi Stand Down Order

US Special forces blocked from protecting consulate

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 10, 2013

In comments that went largely unnoticed, Missouri Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R) directly blamed President Obama for ordering the stand down which facilitated the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi.

 

Wagner was asked by talk show host Dana Loesch, “Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?”

“The President of the United States,” responded Wagner.

The White House has been scrambling to avoid the question of who gave the stand down order ever since whistleblower Greg Hicks, who was number two to Ambassador Chris Stevens, testified that US special forces were ready to board a plane in Tripoli but were prevented from coming to the aid of those under assault inside the consulate.

Hicks revealed that after Stevens had been killed but while the attack was still ongoing, “The Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements,” including US Special Forces, but that a call came through from Special Operations Command Africa saying, “you can’t go now; you don’t have authority to go now.”

“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.” Hicks said.

In the hours after the stand down order was given, three more American diplomats were killed by terrorists who laid siege to the consulate.

The Obama administration denies that any kind of stand down order was given, a claim that rings hollow given the White House’s attempt to cover up the nature of what happened in the days after the attack, claiming instead that it was a “protest” sparked by a YouTube video.

It was also recently revealed that the State Department hired Al-Qaeda-linked militants to “defend” the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that was later attacked. State Department officials who blocked efforts to help Americans under assault later tried to hide Al-Qaeda’s involvement in the attack.

As we have exhaustively documented, the Obama administration’s support for Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Libya, which led to the toppling of Colonel Gaddafi, directly contributed to the attack on the consulate and the death of Ambassador Stevens. The very hospital that Stevens was taken to in the last moments of his life was run by the same terrorists who attacked the consulate and who had been empowered as a result of the White House’s military intervention in Libya.

Despite some predicting that the Benghazi cover-up could lead to the impeachment of Barack Obama, an almost identical situation is now unfolding in Syria as a result of the White House’s support for Al-Qaeda terrorists in the pursuit of regime change.

Despite the fact that militants in Syria have openly espoused their hatred for the United States - burning American flags in public while praising Osama Bin Laden and glorifying the 9/11 attacks - the Obama administration is preparing to send them heavy weaponry.

A growing body of evidence also suggests that the entire purpose of the consulate in Benghazi and Ambassador Stevens’ role there was to oversee clandestine arms shipments to Syrian rebels.

Posted in Middle East, Military Issues, Politics, Terrorism
No Comments »

Benghazigate: What About Air Support From Italy?

 

By: Joe Kirkup

Okay, I did a bit of studying on the question of whether a jet (hopefully more than one) could have been dispatched from Sigonella, Italy to Benghazi to assist the Americans under attack.  Benghazi is 750 kilometers from Sigonella, the F16 combat radius is only 550 kilometers.  The Obama admin keeps saying the jet would need inflight refueling and none was available.  That’s only true if the jet needed to go to Benghazi, do it’s support mission and go all the way back to Sigonella.  The combat radius is not the maximum range, it’s the range to a target with enough fuel left to return to the point of origin.   The actual range of an F16 is over 1100 kilometers.

An F16 needs less than 3000′ of runway to land and even a bit less than that to take off depending on fuel and weapons load.  There is an airport just outside Benghazi with a 13,500′ runway.  As my yuppie friends are wont to say, “do the math.”  Certainly landing in Benghazi would be a risky business, but it’s the business those fighter guys are in.  The libs will surely hate hearing this, but if George Bush had still been in the White House that jet would have been there and Bush would have been in the situation room from the moment the attack happened till it ended.

Maybe I’m the only one here who has ever hid, wounded and frightened in the middle of the night, waiting for the US military to come for me.  I was lucky.  Unfortunately, the folks in Benghazi were hoping for help from a whole different America.

JK

Posted in America's slide, Benghazigate, Military Issues, Politics, Radical Islam, Terrorism
No Comments »

The Next Frontier: Replace GPS With Tiny Chip, No Satellites?

DARPA and the University of Michigan have created a new system that works without satellites to determine position, time and direction, all contained within a eight-cubic-millimeter chip that chip holds three gyroscopes, three accelerometers and an atomic clock, which, together, work as an autonomous navigation system.

AFP – The US army is working to limit its dependence on GPS by developing the next generation of navigation technology, including a tiny autonomous chip, the director of the Pentagon’s research agency said Wednesday.

DARPA, the research group behind a range of spy tech and which helped invent the Internet, was also the driving force behind the creation of the Global Positioning System, director Arati Prabhakar said at a press conference.

“In the 1980s, when GPS satellites started to become widely deployed… it meant carrying an enormous box around on your vehicle,” she said.

“Now it’s got to the point where it’s embedded not just in all our platforms but in many of our weapons,” as well as in many civilian devices, she said.

But “sometimes a capability is so powerful that our reliance on it, in itself, becomes a vulnerability,” she added.

“I think that’s where we are today with GPS.”

Among the fears: the GPS signal could be scrambled by an adversary, as happened recently in South Korea.

Starting in 2010, DARPA has been working on a variety of programs aimed at developing new navigation and positioning technology — at first with the goal of extending their reach to places where satellites don’t work, such as underwater.

But now, amid fears of over-reliance on — and possible vulnerabilities with — global positioning satellites, experts are looking to create not just a companion, but an alternative to GPS.

To that end, researchers at DARPA and the University of Michigan have created a new system that works without satellites to determine position, time and direction, all contained within a eight-cubic-millimeter chip.

The tiny chip holds three gyroscopes, three accelerometers and an atomic clock, which, together, work as an autonomous navigation system.

DARPA envisages using this technology to replace GPS in some contexts, especially in small-caliber ammunition or for monitoring people.

Another approach would use existing signals, such as those generated by broadcast antennas, radios, telephone towers and even lightning to temporarily replace GPS.

Prabhakar emphasized there “will not be a monolithic new solution, it will be a series of technologies to track and fix time and position from external sources.”

Posted in Military Issues, Science and Technology, Uncategorized
Comments Off

Stealth Sub?

Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY
Last updated at 00:13 10 November 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world’s only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

clip_image003

Uninvited guest: A Chinese Song Class submarine, like the one that sufaced by the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was “as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik” – a reference to the Soviet Union’s first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

Posted in America's slide, Military Issues, Publius Economy, Science and Technology
Comments Off

INTEL From Mossad and (German) BND re: Terror Hits On The US And Europe.

Here’s a bit of intelligence that arrived just this morning and is something that everyone should read and consider. The source is highly credible. I have known and trusted him (with my life, in Vietnam) since the mid-1960′s. That’s all I feel free to say, so, take it as you wish. I, though, take it as gospel. lowflyer

A HEADS UP!!!

In the realm of “for what it’s worth”, I received an INTEL report yesterday from a very close friend who is German and owns/operates a major global firm. Being from Germany, he has a “pal” who is a BND career guy who has focused his work in the Middle East for few decades; therefore, in that the BND is the CIA of Germany he works closely with MOSSAD the INTEL agency/operator group from Israel. The point to the note from the German man, his connection with the BND stated they and MOSSAD are predicting terrorist’s hits to the U.S. and Europe this year. The “hits” are predicted based upon HUMINT and found OPLANS from al-Qaeda and related groups which are believed to be very “real” and valid. The hit sites are varied targets in both Europe and the U.S. but the “predicted” sites are in cities and rural areas as well. Again, the hits will be this year!! The OPLANS have listed the targets!! The targets are many and in several states!!

** In more specific terms, airports – ports – resorts – hotels – shopping centers, etc., are the target sites. The predictions are apparently well known to law enforcement agencies-departments in both the U.S. and Europe now!! {{These predictions are known to the White House, DHS, FBI and other agencies as they are to the leadership of EuroZone nations. }} **

There are known/valid INTEL reports from al-Qaeda that with the serious economic negatives in the EuroZone and U.S., major “hits” will create added economic negatives for months and longer, which is the a major “incentive” for the hits.

** I do know that there have many “hit” stops (terrorist attacks were thwarted – editor) in the last several years due to the work of agencies/departments at the Federal and local levels. **

Certainly, over the years there have been “hit” predictions but NOW the INTEL from the BND/MOSSAD is “super high” and valid … as per the report.

Posted in America's slide, Middle East, Military Issues, Radical Islam, Terrorism, The Economy
4 Comments »

Did a Surreptitious Military Attack Against Iran’s Nuc Center Take Place in January?

 

In September 2012, Iran’s Fars News Agency (FNS) reported, Iranian nuclear experts had thwarted “enemies’ plots to infiltrate and blow up the … newly constructed Fordow uranium enrichment facility” near Qom. Abbas Ali Mansouri, an Iranian member of parliament, stated that “arrogant powers” could not “bear” Iran’s “rapid progress and flourishing,” and, to no avail, “spare no inhuman acts to prevent the country’s progress.”

How ironic, therefore, the Jan. 24, 2013 report from former Iranian CIA operative Reza Kahlili of news, via former Iranian secret intelligence security chief, Hamid Reza Zakeri, of devastating sabotage three days earlier at the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility. An explosion 300 feet deep had destroyed much of the site containing 2,700 uranium enrichment centrifuges (first discovered by Westerners in 2009), and trapped over 200 workers. Previously, experts had reported, improving the plant’s 20 percent level uranium to weapons grade would take but weeks.

That weekend (Jan. 27), Die Welt‘s Clemens Wergen reported that its Sunday edition had independently confirmed the explosion via experts plugged into the Iranian intelligence service. “Die Welt reported it, and they are very good on Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, told Leeb Group Managing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen. Their confirmation “through independent sources says [to me] that they verified the details with sources inside BND,” Germany’s counterpart to the CIA. Die Welt also noted that the plant’s elevator shafts and emergency exits had blown out.

Also on Jan. 27, UPI ran the story, citing Kahlili’s original report, likewise noting the explosion’s force, felt in a 3-mile radius, the imposition of a 15-mile no-traffic zone, and hours-long closure of the Tehran-Qom highway. U.S. officials were informed, but neither the U.S. nor Iran had verified or denied.

News spread on Jan. 28, when the Times of London confirmed the report, citing Israeli officials not previously quoted. “We are still in the preliminary stages of understanding what happened,” an unnamed Israeli official said, according to the report. “He did not know if the explosion was ‘sabotage or accident,’ and refused to comment on reports” of simultaneous sightings of Israeli aircraft near the facility. Alternative news source Missing Peace reported confirmation, also, from London’s Centre for Arab & Iranian Studies director Ali Reza Nourizadeh, a commentator for Deutsche Welle and Voice of America.

Reports followed in several Israeli papers, including Arutz Sheva, quoting an Israel Defense Forces Radio interview of Zakeri himself. “It was a big blast and because the facility is built under a stone mountain, it is very difficult to get to the workers who are trapped there,” Zakeri reportedly told IDF Radio, citing destruction of elevators and emergency staircases.

The Times of Israel quoted Israeli Acting Defense Minister and former Shin Bet security chief Avi Dichter. “Any explosion in Iran that doesn’t hurt people but hurts its assets is welcome,” Dichter stated. Other Israeli newspapers joined the parade: Israel Matzav, Jerusalem Post, and Ynet. So did the U.K.’s Mail Online, citing Israeli officials—and correctly noting that Iran had ignored several U.N. Security Council resolutions ordering Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment.

Even Bahrain’s Gulf Daily News, plus its official news agency, reported the news on Jan. 29, although the former Persian Gulf outlet also noted Reuters’ inability to confirm it, and quoted the denial of any Fordow explosion from Iranian military commander Massoud Jazayeri, carried on Iran’s ISNA news agency.

Iranian denials then mounted, and English wire services (including Reuters, AP, and follow-up UPI coverage) lead stories with those—alongside purported confirmation of Iran’s denials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That week, most headlines on Fordow claimed the explosion never happened, and many quoted White House spokesman Jay Carney, too: “We have no information to confirm the allegations in that report, and we do not believe the report is credible.”

“The White House is hedging its bets,” CSP senior fellow Lopez told Leeb last week. “It still wants  dialogue with the Iranian regime. Despite all the setbacks, and getting nowhere after multiple rounds of talks—four or five rounds in 2012, and one in January 2013—… they keep thinking and hoping [talks will] get somewhere. I don’t know why they think that. After so many times Lucy grabs the football, Charlie Brown, you know you’ll never kick it.” That could explain the administration’s disavowal, but IAEA denials are completely disingenuous. “IAEA has had no inspectors [in Iran] since last August,” and never had cameras at Fordow, as it does at Iran’s larger Natanz facility” she said.

Most liberal media, and even Fox News, were in the deniers’ corner.

But alternative, left-tilting Policy Mic news site found the initial lack of mainstream news “bizarre.” Circumstantial evidence surprisingly led Policy Mic writer Bryant Harris to conclude, “a strong possibility emerges that this was another incident in the U.S.-Israel shadow war on Iran’s nuclear program.”

Iran had repeatedly responded with denials to attacks “on its military or nuclear operations.” In 2010, Iran denied that the infamous Stuxnet virus had rendered its centrifuges inoperable, despite taking thousands of centrifuges offline, a fact even the IAEA confirmed, which the U.S. confirmed in 2012. Operation Olympic Games was initiated with Israeli support during the Bush administration. Other such examples abound.

Meanwhile, in a Jan. 25 interview in Davos, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak outlined possible use of a “surgical option” and U.S. Israeli cooperation to avoid full scale war over Iran’s nuclear program. Given Iran’s “robust anti-earthquake technology,” only the Massive Ordnance Penetrator could penetrate Fordow, Harris observed. Boeing only recently announced that its high-tech bomb could penetrate 200-foot-thick concrete before exploding. The explosion occurred, Harris wrote, and followed a logical “series of covert actions” to impede Iran’s nuclear ambitions—making it “very likely” the result of an external strike, not malfunction.

Probably it’s no coincidence, either, that immediately after the reported explosion, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called an emergency summit, or that Iran the next week announced sending a monkey into outer space (to boast its rocket power)—and then news-flashed plans to speed and upgrade its nuclear program. Most likely, Iran’s Feb. 3 announcement of another round of talks in Kazakhstan amounts to more bluster—another Peanuts episode, as it were.

But the explosive news, albeit largely uncovered by mainstream Western media, is mostly good.

And it ties to U.S. and global markets. “There is a financial aspect to this,” Lopez remarked. “When the Middle East blows up next time—when, not if—it will affect economic news, oil and gas prices, investors,” everything.

As investors, we must keep a close eye on Middle East developments, especially given bizarre mainstream news blackouts—and official and media denials. This time, we sigh in relief.

leebsmarketforecast.com

Posted in Middle East, Military Issues, Publius Economy
Comments Off

Yellow Bellied Panetta Throws Female Soldiers Under The Tank As He Hits The Exit Door Running

Schlafly: Panetta’s cowardly decision

Via: Hugh S.

Schlafly: Panetta's cowardly decision

By: Phyllis Schlafly 1/29/2013 08:21 AM

In a newsworthy act of political cowardice, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ran through the Pentagon’s exit door as he announced he is striking down the 1994 Combat Exclusion Law. His timing means his successor, presumably Chuck Hagel, will inherit the task of defending the order to assign women to front-line military combat.

Of course, Panetta doesn’t want to be grilled about his order. It’s lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists.

Panetta’s order may be illegal or even unconstitutional because the authority to make such a radical change was specifically granted to Congress, according to former Defense Department Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz. A constitutional expert, Schmitz held the position of the Defense Department’s top investigator from 2002 to 2005 after 27 years of service in the U.S. Navy, including 5 years of active duty.

Schmitz said the order will surely lead to a “degradation of good order and discipline.” Here are some of the questions Panetta can now avoid being asked.

Will the new policy of women in combat assignments be based on gender norming? That means giving women and men the same tests but scoring them differently; i.e., grading women “A” for the same performance that would give a man a “C,” but clearing both as passing the test on the pretense that equal effort equals equal results.

Please explain how your new women-in-combat policy will be impacted by your policy of “diversity metrics,” which is a fancy name for quotas. In order to create the illusion that your new feminist policy is a success, will men be required to pretend that women are qualified and entitled to career promotions?

Do you really believe that the assignment of women to combat infantry will improve combat readiness? What is your plan for non-deployability rates of women due to pregnancy and complications of sexual misconduct ranging from assault to fraternization?

In order to make the weight-lifting requirement for combat assignments gender neutral, how many pounds will be taken off the test? The gender differences in weight-lifting ability and upper-body strength are well documented.

Will men be expected to conceal female physical deficiencies in order to make the new policy “work”? Will men’s careers be harmed if they report the truth about women’s inability to do the “heavy lifting”?

Military women are already complaining about increased sexual assaults, and of course those problems will skyrocket. Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims.

The military is already plagued with reports of large sex scandals in our current coed army. At the Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, 32 instructors allegedly took advantage of their power over 59 recruits, and at least two instructors allegedly had sexual encounters with 10 different recruits.

Do you recognize that the demand for the change in combat exclusion comes only from female officers who want higher rank and pay but not from enlisted women who will bear the burden of the really tough and dangerous work? Where are your surveys of enlisted women’s opinions?

Will assignment to combat jobs be voluntary for women but involuntary for men? Will the military ask women “do you want to go to combat?” but just assign men wherever bloody, fatal fighting is needed?

Will promotions for field commanders depend on their attainment of “diversity metrics” that can be achieved only by creating a “critical mass” of women in infantry battalions? Explain the test of Marines in last year’s tryouts for the Infantry Officer Course where only two women volunteered, one washed out the first day and the other after one week?

How do you answer the fact that women do not have an equal opportunity to survive in combat situations, and did you consider the fact that women in the military get injured at least twice the rate of men? Please explain why the National Football League does not seek diversity or gender equality with female players.

Canada dealt with the problem of creating new standards for the gender integration of combat forces by renaming the process. Canada didn’t create “lower” or even “equal” standards, they just adopted “appropriate” standards. Will the U.S. play word games like that?

Retired Army Major General Robert H. Scales explained in the Washington Post that we know from experience with war that the intimate, deliberate, brutal killing of our country’s enemies is best done by small units or teams of men. Four solid buddy pairings of men led by a sergeant compose a nine-man battle-ready combat squad.

These squads are bound together by the “band of brothers” effect. It is a phrase borrowed from Shakespeare’s Henry V. Centuries of battlefield experience that have taught us that this brotherhood is what causes a young man to risk and even sacrifice his life willingly so his buddies can survive, and that cohesion is a male-only relationship that would be irreparably compromised by including women in the squad.

Combat doesn’t mean merely firing a gun; of course women can do that. Combat doesn’t mean merely getting wounded and dying; of course women can do that. Combat means aggressively seeking out and killing the enemy.

A lot of people have a very sanitized view of what battlefield fighting is all about. They seem to think it means a quick gunfight and then returning to the base with separate shower and toilet facilities and a ready mess hall.

Let’s hear from men who have actually fought in close-combat situations. Ryan Smith, a Marine infantry squad leader in our 2003 invasion of Iraq, described the reality of spending 48 hours in scorching Middle Eastern heat with 25 Marines stuffed in the back of a vehicle designed for 15 dressed in full gear, sitting on each other, without exiting the vehicles for any toilet needs.

I’ll spare you his description of the unsanitary conditions. They went a month without a shower and finally all stood naked to be sprayed off with pressure washers. What kind of men would put women through this?

Panetta won’t have to deal with any of these questions. He left them for his successor and more particularly for the field commanders whose careers will depend on compliance.

SOURCE: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/29/schlaflypanetta-cowardly-decision/

Posted in America's slide, Constituion, Military Issues, Politics
Comments Off

New Details On Iranian Nuke Site Explosion

White House denies explosion happened. Trying to cover possible covert action as cause?

by: Reza Kahlili
ahmadinejad32

Sixteen North Koreans, including 14 technicians and two top military officers, are among those trapped after a Jan. 21 explosion destroyed much of Iran’s Fordow nuclear site, a source reveals.

The source who provided the initial information on the explosion at one of Iran’s most important nuclear sites has now provided details about the degree of the destruction.

The report, published exclusively by WND Jan. 24, is being covered internationally by major media, with independent intelligence sources confirming the explosion for the Times of London and the German Die Welt.

But White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday: “We have no information to confirm the allegations in the report and we do not believe the report is credible.”

The short White House response, the source said, is an indication that the U.S. wants to steer away from the subject as any covert operation against the regime’s nuclear installations will have consequences, including retaliation.

Get the inside story in Reza Kahlili’s “A Time To Betray” and learn how the Islamic regime “bought the bomb” in “Atomic Iran.”

The Islamic regime’s media, in a coordinated effort, reflected a similarly short response Sunday night in its denial and remained silent Monday.

A senior researcher and director of the Centre for Arab & Iranian Studies in London, Ali Reza Nourizadeh, who has many contacts in Iran, confirmed that the explosion had trapped many inside.

According WND’s source, a member of the security forces protecting Fordow, 36 North Korean technicians and military officers arrived in Tehran Jan. 15 and 17 and subsequently visited two Iranian nuclear sites under heavy security. One site, still unknown to the West with its vast installation of centrifuges, will be revealed soon by WND. At the other, the Fordow site, the North Koreans were to witness the start-up of six cascades of 174 new-generation, speedier centrifuges.

Hamidreza Zakeri, a former member of the regime’s Intelligence Ministry, said 17 technicians and two military supervisors are stationed at the secret site, and 14 technicians and two military officers were at Fordow.

The source said a log on closed-circuit cameras installed by the regime to monitor the site’s three centrifuge chambers and two highly enriched uranium reserves gave this account:

  • On Jan 21, 14 members of the North Korean team and two military officers now stationed at Fordow along with Iranian scientists started the process of feeding uranium gas into the newly set-up cascades at 9:15 a.m. Tehran time
  • At 10:43 a.m., due to a drop in power pressure, system warning signs went off, but everything went back to normal after two minutes.
  • At 11:36 a.m., five explosions occurred concurrently in the centrifuge chambers, two explosions in the uranium reserve enclosures and a subsequent explosion in the main hallway close to the exit.
  • At the time of the explosions, a very bright red and purple light distorted the image and an extremely loud noise could be heard. Before the explosions knocked out the cameras, interior walls could be seen coming down within the centrifuge chambers. All the explosions seemed to have been initiated from the ceilings.
  • All cameras on the lowest floor (about 300 feet deep under a mountain) and the floor above it (about 250 feet deep) were knocked out, and only two cameras above the installation where security personnel are stationed were working.
  • Security forces immediately informed their superiors, who ordered them to remain in the monitoring room and avoid further communication with the outside world until counterintelligence forces arrived. Twenty-one personnel were gathered in a conference room to await further instruction.
  • Security forces were then told to close down all surrounding roads.
  • Approximately two hours after the explosions, counterintelligence agents arrived and, after interviewing personnel and reviewing tapes, initially concluded that explosives may have been placed in ceiling lamps with some kind of trigger mechanism controlled by a power voltage frequency.
  • The last images show eight personnel in anti-radiation clothing trying desperately to secure one of the rooms.

The regime believes the technology used with the explosives is unknown to their forces, the source said.

Iranian authorities fear that opening the site from the outside in a rescue mission could possibly release radiation and uranium gas or cause further explosions, which could contaminate thousands of people living nearby, the source said.

As of Monday, the regime had not come up with any concrete rescue plan, though more than 200 people remain trapped, including the North Koreans, he said. He added that an agreement reached last September between North Korea and Iran called for further collaboration on Iran’s nuclear bomb project and the arming of missiles with nuclear warheads.

Another source in the Intelligence Ministry said that in a meeting Monday among top officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was decided that the international community would be kept in the dark about the disaster because any validation would undermine current negotiating with the 5+1 world powers.

An admission would also undermine the regime from within should Iranians react to its illicit nuclear activity and the international sanctions it caused, which are being felt deeply.

The source added that the regime is contemplating showing old images of the interior of the site to buy time until it can accurately estimate the extent of damage and possible loss of lives. Ahmadinejad will hold a parliamentary meeting behind closed doors on the issue  Thursday.

Despite severe international pressure and sanctions, Iran had refused to halt the 20-percent uranium enrichment process at Fordow. It takes only weeks to further enrich the stock at the 20-percent level to weaponization grade for a nuclear bomb.

Posted in Media, Middle East, Military Issues, Politics, Radical Islam
Comments Off

The Problems Of Women In Combat – From A Female Combat Vet

“The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.”

by: Jude Eden

It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.

Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.

This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)

When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – “Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!”

Then there are relationships. Whether it’s a consensual relationship, unwanted advances, or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion. No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together. A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism. A relationship goes sour, and suddenly one loses faith in the very person who may need to drag one off the field of battle. A sexual assault happens, and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them. A vindictive man paints a woman as easy, and she loses the respect of her peers. A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it’s poison to the unit. All this happens before the fighting even begins.

Yet another little-discussed issue is that some female military members are leaving their kids behind to advance their careers by deploying. I know of one divorced Marine who left her two sons, one of them autistic, with their grandparents while she deployed. She was wounded on base (not on the front lines) and is a purple heart recipient. What if she’d been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood. Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn’t let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern.

I understand the will to fight. I joined the Marines in the hopes of deploying because I believe that fighting jihadists is right. And I care about the women and children in Islamic countries where they are denied their rights, subjugated, mutilated, and murdered with impunity; and where children are molested and raped with impunity (not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America.) Joining the Marines was one of the best things I’ve ever done in my life, and I’m glad I got to deploy. It not only allowed me to witness the war, but to witness the problems with women in combat.

Women have many wonderful strengths, and there is certainly a lot of work for women to do in the military. But all the problems that come with men and women working together are compounded in the war zone, destroying the cohesion necessary to fight bloody, hellish war. We are at war; and if we want to win, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the top priority should be military readiness and WINNING wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed “equality” on the military.

SOURCE: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/

Posted in Military Issues, Politics
Comments Off