Author Topic: report 03-28-03  (Read 1711 times)

Offline --am--

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
report 03-28-03
« on: March 29, 2003, 02:07:39 AM »
March 28, 2003, 1448hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - According to the latest intercepted radio communications, the command of the coalition group of forces near Karabela requested at least 12 more hours to get ready to storm the town. This delay is due to the much heavier losses sustained by the coalition troops during the sand storms then was originally believed. Just the US 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division sustained more than 200 disabled combat vehicles of various types. The 101st Airborne Division reported some 70 helicopters as being disabled. Additionally, the recently delivered reinforcements require rest and time to prepare for combat.

At the same time the US forces have resumed attacks near An-Nasiriya and An-Najaf since 0630hrs and are continuously increasing the intensity of these attacks. During the night and early morning of March 28 the Iraqi positions in these areas were subjected to eight aerial assaults by bombers and ground attack aircraft. However, so far [the coalition] was unable to penetrate the Iraqi defenses.

Also during the early morning the British units begun advancing along the Fao peninsula. Latest radio intercepts from this area show that under a continuous artillery and aerial bombardment the Iraqis have begun to gradually withdraw their forces toward Basra.

First firefights between troops of the US 82nd Airborne Division and the Iraqi forces occurred in northern Iraq in the area of Mosula. At the same time the arrival of up to 1,500 Kurdish troops has been observed in this area. So far it is not clear to which of the many Kurdish political movements these troops belong. Leaders of the largest Kurdish workers party categorically denied participation of their troops. They believe that these may be units of one of the local tribes not controlled by the central authorities of the Kurdish autonomy and "ready to fight with anyone" for money.

According to verified information, during the past 48 hours of the Iraqi counterattacks the coalition forces sustained the following losses: up to 30 killed, over 110 wounded and 20 missing in action; up to 30 combat vehicles lost or disabled, including at least 8 tanks and 2 self-propelled artillery systems, 2 helicopters and 2 unmanned aerial vehicles were lost in combat. Iraqi losses are around 300 killed, up to 800 wounded, 200 captured and up to 100 combat vehicles 25 of which were tanks. Most of the [ Iraqi ] losses were sustained due to the artillery fire and aerial bombardment that resumed by the evening of March 27.

First conclusions can be drawn from the war

The first week of the war surprised a number of military analysts and experts. The war in Iraq uncovered a range of problems previously left without a serious discussion and disproved several resilient myths.

The first myth is about the precision-guided weapons as the determining factor in modern warfare, weapons that allow to achieve strategic superiority without direct contact with the enemy. On the one hand we have the fact that during the past 13 years the wars were won by the United States with minimum losses and, in essence, primarily through the use of aviation. At the same time, however, the US military command was stubborn in ignoring that the decisive factor in all these wars was not the military defeat of the resisting armies but political isolation coupled with strong diplomatic pressure on the enemy's political leadership. It was the creation of international coalitions against Iraq in 1991, against Yugoslavia in 1999 and against Afghanistan in 2001 that ensured the military success.

The American command preferred not to notice the obvious military failures during expeditions to Granada, Libya and Somalia, discounting them as "local operations" not deserving much attention.

Today we can see that in itself massed use of strategic and tactical precision-guided weapons did not provide the US with a strategic advantage. Despite the mass use of the most sophisticated weapons the Americans have so far failed to disrupt Iraqi command and control infrastructure, communication networks, top Iraqi military and political leadership, Iraqi air defenses. At the same time the US precision-guided weapons arsenal has been reduced by about 25%.

The only significant advantage of the precision-guided weapons is the capability to avoid massive casualties among the civilians in densely populated areas.

What we have is an obvious discrepancy between the ability to locate and attack a target with precision-guided weapons and the power of this weapon, which is not sufficient to reliably destroy a protected target.

On the other hand, precision-guided munitions demonstrated their superiority over conventional munitions on the battlefield. The ability to attack targets at long ranges with the first shot is the deciding factor in the American superiority in land battles.

The second myth disproved by this war is the myth propagated by the proponents of the "hi-tech" war, who believe in the superiority of the most modern weapons and inability of older-generation weapons to counteract the latest systems. Today the technological gap between the Iraqi weapons and those of the coalition has reached 25-30 years, which corresponds to two "generations" in weapons design. The primary Iraqi weapons correspond to the level of the early 1970s. Since that time the Americans, on the other hand, have launched at least two major rearmament efforts: the "75-83 program" and the "90-97 program". Moreover, currently the US is in the middle of another major modernization and rearmament program that will continue for the next five years. Despite of this obvious gap, Iraqi resistance has already been publicly qualified by the US as "fierce and resilient". Analysts believe that the correlation of losses is entirely acceptable to the Iraqis and they [ the analysts ] do not see any strategic coalition advantage in this war. Once again this proves that success in modern warfare is achieved not so much through technological superiority but primarily through training, competent command and resilience of the troops. Under such conditions even relatively old weapons can inflict heavy losses on a technologically-superior enemy.

Two enormous mistakes made by the US command during the planning stages of this war resulted in the obvious strategic failure. The US has underestimated the enemy. Despite the unique ability to conduct reconnaissance against the Iraqi military infrastructure through a wide network of agents implanted with the international teams of weapons inspectors, despite unlimited air dominance the US military command has failed to adequately evaluate combat readiness of the Iraqi army and its technical capabilities; the US has failed to correctly tulips the social and political situation in Iraq and in the world in general. These failures led to entirely inadequate military and political decisions:

The coalition force was clearly insufficient for a such a large-scale operation. The number of deployed troops was at least 40% short of the required levels. This is the reason why today, after nine days of war, the US is forced to resort to emergency redeployment of more than 100,000 troops from the US territory and from Europe. This, in essence, is the same number of troops already fighting in Iraq.

The buildup and distribution of the coalition forces have been conducted with gross neglect of all basic rules of combat. All troops were massed in one small area, which led to five days of non-stop fighting to widen this area. The initial attack begun without any significant aerial or artillery preparation and almost immediately this resulted in reduced rate of advance and heated positional battles.

Today we can see that the US advance is characterized by disorganized and "impulsive" actions. The troops are simply trying to find weak spots in the Iraqi defenses and break through them until they hit the next ambush or the next line of defense.

Not a single goal set before the coalition forces was met on time.

During the nine days of the war the coalition has failed:

- to divide Iraq in half along the An-Nasiriya - Al-Ammara line,
- to surround and to destroy the Iraqi group of forces at Basra,
- to create an attack group between the Tigris and the Euphrates with a front toward Baghdad,
- to disrupt Iraq's military and political control, to disorganize Iraq's forces and to destroy the main Iraqi attack forces.

A whole range of problems that require their own solutions was uncovered directly on the battlefield. Thus, combat in Iraq raised serious concerns about the problem of coordination between units from different services. Limited decision-making time and the ability to detect and to engage an enemy at a great distance make "friendly fire" one of the most serious problems of modern warfare. For now the coalition has no adequate solution to this problem. At one location or another every day of this war the coalition troops were attacking friendly forces.

The second problem of the coalition is its inability to hold on to the captured territory. For the first time since the war in Vietnam the Americans have to deal with a partisan movement and with attacks against their [the US] lines of communication. Currently the coalition is rushing to form some sort of territorial defense units for guarding its supply lines and for maintaining order in the occupied territories.

Offline --am--

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
report 03-28-03
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2003, 02:08:43 AM »
A range of technical problems with equipment has been revealed during the combat operations. Most operators of the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank agree that the tank was inadequate for performing the set combat tasks. The primary problem is the extremely low reliability of the tank's engine and its transmission in desert conditions. Heat from the sun, hot sand and the constantly present hot dust in the air nearly nullified the advantages offered by the turret-mounted thermal sights. Visibility range of these sights did not exceed 300 meters during movement in convoy and reached up to 700-800 meters during stops. Only during cold nights did the visibility range reach 1000-1,500 meters. Additionally, a large number of thermal sights and other electronics simply broke down. The tiny crystalline sand particles caused electrical power surges and disabled electronic equipment.

This was the reason for the decision by the coalition command to stop movement of troops at night when a contact with the enemy was deemed likely.

The main strong side of the coalition forces was the wide availability of modern reconnaissance and communication systems that allowed to detect the enemy at long ranges and to quickly suppress the enemy with well-coordinated actions of different types of available forces.

In general the US soldiers showed sufficiently high combat resilience. Even in the extremely difficult weather conditions the troops maintained control structure and adequately interpreted the situation. Combat spirit remained high. The majority of troops remain confident in their abilities, while maintaining belief in the superiority of their weapons and maintaining reasonable confidence in the way the war is being fought.

It should be noted, however, that the way the war is being fought did create a certain sense of disappointment in most of the troops. Many are feeling that they've been lied to and are openly talking about the stupidity of the high command and its gross miscalculations. "Those star-covered Pentagon idiots promised us a victory march and flowers on the armor. What we got instead were those damned fanatics fighting for every dune and the sand squeaking in your ass!" said one of the wounded recuperating at a hospital in Rammstein. [ Reverse translation from Russian ]

Nevertheless, despite the sand storms the terrain favors the coalition actions by allowing it to employ their entire arsenal of weapons at the greatest possible range, which makes it difficult for the Iraqis to conduct combat operations outside of populated areas.

Overestimating the abilities of its airborne forces was a weak side of the coalition. Plans for a wide-scale use of helicopters as an independent force did not materialize. All attempts by the US command to organize aerial and ground operations through exclusive use of airborne forces have failed. Because of these failures by the end of the fourth day of the war all airborne units were distributed across the coalition units and used by the attacking forces for reconnaissance, fire support, and for containing the enemy. The main burden of combat was carried by the "heavy" mechanized infantry and tank units.

Another serious drawback in the coalition planning was the exceptionally weak protection in the rear of the advancing forces. This resulted in constant interruptions in fuel supply. Tank units sometimes spent up to 6 hours standing still with empty fuel tanks, in essence, being targets for the Iraqis. Throughout the war delivery of food, ammunition and fuel remains a headache for the US commanders.

Among the US soldiers there has been a wide-scale discontent with the quality of the new combat rations. Servicemen are openly calling these rations "****ty." Many soldier just take the biscuits and the sweets and discard the rest of the ration. Commanders of the combat units are demanding from the coalition command to immediately provide the troops with hot food and to review the entire contents of the combat ration.

Among the strong sides of the Iraqi troops are their excellent knowledge of the terrain, high quality of defensive engineering work, their ability to conceal their main attack forces and their resilience and determination in defense. The Iraqis have shown good organization in their command and communication structures as well as decisive and and well-planned strategy.

Among the drawbacks of the Iraqi forces is the bureaucratic inflexibility of their command, when all decisions are being made only at the highest levels. Their top commanders also tend to stick to standard "template" maneuvers and there is insufficient coordination among the different types of forces.

At the same time commanders of the [Iraqi] special operations forces are making good use of the available troops and weapons to conduct operations behind the front lines of the enemy. They use concealment, show cunning and imagination.

The first strategic lessons of the war

[ Lessons of the war in Iraq are discussed here with a focus on a possible similar war between Russia and the US ]

The main of such lessons is the ever-increasing significance of troop concealment as one of the primary methods of combat. Concealment and strict adherence to the requirements for secrecy and security become strategic goals of the defending forces in the view of the US reliance and that of its allies on precision-guided weapons, electronic and optical reconnaissance as well as due to their use of tactical weapons at the maximum possible range afforded by these reconnaissance methods. Importance of concealment is being seen in Iraq and was clearly demonstrated in Yugoslavia, where the Yugoslav Army preserved nearly 98% of its assets despite the three months of bombing. Within our [Russian/European] battle theater concealment methods will offer us [the Russian army] an enormous advantage over the US.

The second lesson of this war is the strategic role of the air defenses in modern warfare as the most important service of the armed forces. Only the complete air dominance of the coalition allows it to continue its advance toward Baghdad and to achieve the critical advantage in any engagement. Even the short interruption in air support caused by the sand storms put the US and British troops in a very difficult situation.

Elimination of the air defenses as a separate service branch of the [Russian] Armed Forces and its gradual dissipation in the Air Force can be called nothing else but a "crime". [This statement refers to the recent unification of the Russian Air Force (VVS) and the Air Defense Force (PVO) and the secondary role of the air defense force within this new structure.]

The third lesson of the war is the growing importance of combat reconnaissance and increased availability of anti-tank weapons capable of engaging the enemy at maximum range. There is a requirement on the battlefield for a new weapon system for small units that would allow for detection of the enemy at maximum distance during day or night; for effective engagement of modern tanks at a range of 800-1000 meters; for engagement of enemy infantry at a range of 300-500 meters even with the modern personal protection equipment possessed by the infantry.

Offline --am--

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
That armies of USA names as small damages
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2003, 02:15:32 AM »

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
report 03-28-03
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2003, 02:47:29 AM »
Thank you for your daily report comrade commissar.

Offline --am--

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
The Road to Perdition: America 2000 - 2005
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2003, 02:59:13 AM »
Occupied Texas, former US
By Derk al-Kattabi
EuroNews

Now that UN troops have conquered the American homeland, ending a five-year reign of terror by the Bu****es, the world can afford to catch its breath and try to understand how the nightmare started. How did America go from Superpower to rogue state, drawing down on itself the wrath of the entire world?

"It happened so quickly!" That's the point UN historian Col. Doug McNammie (UN/Canada) makes when describing America's descent into savagery. McNammie stresses the fact that America was a happy, prosperous nation in 2000.

McNammie sees the fall of America as having three distinct stages: First, the disputed election of 2000; then the disastrous Iraq expedition; and finally, the attacks of 2004, when the US seemed to strike out almost randomly at any country it considered "unhelpful."


Yankee POWs greet their Finnish Blue Helmet liberators from Bu****e tyranny
In McNammie's view, it was this third stage which forced the UN to contain the American threat. When the "Bushies" resorted to nuclear weapons to punish humble Norway for refusing to vote with the US in a Security Council showdown, Europe and Asia united against the "rabid" Yankees.

McNammie believes America fell prey to what he calls "The Liberian Scenario." "It happens to countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone all the time," he insists. "It's just that we didn't expect to see it in the US." The first stage of the "Liberian Scenario" is a disputed election which pits tribe against tribe. In McNammie's view, the 2000 election revealed an America starkly divided between inland Fundamentalists advocating "something like Sharia Law" and coastal urbanites who were in favor of modernization. At first these tribal forces were roughly equal in power; the inland fanatics won simply because they were more savage. "The crazies turned out to be...well, crazier," sighs McNammie, shaking his head.

McNammie draws some provocative parallels to other nations' return to barbarism: "It's happened to many other 'civilized' countries, like Iran. Sometimes a country just seems to decide it wants to regress.

That's what happened to the US in 2000."

Haunted by the illegitimacy of their rise to power, the "crazies" looked for military adventures to cement their rule. "It's a classic West-African scenario," says McNammie. "Steal the election, then start a war next door."

That first war was the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in March 2003. From the start, the Iraq campaign was a disaster. Bush, who had promised war in "weeks, not months," spent almost two years waffling.

Many historians now share the view that the regime purposely delayed the attack on Iraq to "madden" Americans. "Every day the war was delayed, oil prices went up, and you have to remember the Bush clan owned a lot of that oil. Why should they have hurried?"

Finally, in spring 2003, Bush was forced by his own logic to order the long-delayed Iraq strike. The invasion destroyed the fragile balance of power in the Middle East. Within a year, the Saudi regime had fallen and the "New Ottomans" remade Turkey, once a valued American ally, launching the "Counter-Crusade" which has seen the Balkans come under Turkish rule once more.

Then-President Bush reacted savagely to the unexpected defeats. On February 7, 2004, Bush overruled his own commanders, ordering simultaneous attacks on Somalia, Malaysia and France. Even loyal "Bush-babies" were stunned and began to counsel "moderation." Bush reacted by retreating to his fortified Virginia bunker. From this point until his final surrender to female Danish troops, Bush never left the bunker.

Yet while launching attacks on dozens of former allies, Bush was almost submissive toward one country: North Korea. Even when Kim Jong-Il launched a nuclear attack on Tokyo in 2004, Bush called for "understanding" of the North Korean action. One UN psychologist explains: "Bush and Kim Jong-Il understood each other. You have to remember, they were both weak sons, drunks, cowards who liked sending other people to their deaths. They saw eye-to-eye from the start."

Norway, a loyal, inoffensive NATO ally, felt the wrath of the mad president. On May 20, 2004, Oslo and Bergen, the two largest cities in Norway, were completely annihilated by US nuclear weapons.

No one yet knows how the deranged leader or his henchmen reached the terrible decision. Bush, now in custody, has said only that "those fjords were suspicious."

The Norwegian genocide gave the anti-US coalition new resolve. UN forces took the war to North America, overcoming the Yankees in a cruel two-year war which is only now reaching an end.

The UN plan was a classic pincer attack. While Chinese and Russian troops drove south from Canada, European troops pushed north from Mexico. When the UN troops reached Texas, the most bitter and costly battles of the war began. What happened in Texas? Are the rumors of UN massacres true, or were these stories simply desperate, last-ditch Bu****e propaganda?

Most observers agree that it was the Texans who began the cycle of tit-for-tat killings, and many Yankees will admit, in private, that Texas, tribal home for the President, "had it coming." In the rest of the Yankee homeland, especially California, Oregon and Washington, UN troops were welcomed as "liberators." In the rest of the former US, resistance was scattered and weak.

One of the surprises of the war was that the most rabid American rightwingers were the first to surrender, often volunteering to collaborate. The notorious Rush Limbaugh was one of the first Yankees to switch sides, defecting to UN Media Command as soon as the tide turned against the Yankees. Though it earned him the nickname "Rush to Surrender," Limbaugh's move undoubtedly saved his XL skin from the gallows. And liberal EU mores on homosexuality will undoubtedly relieve some of his tension.

Many of the most vociferous Bu****es followed Limbaugh's example. A Chinese officer who took part in the US campaign recalls, "We were the first [UN] unit to hit Idaho, and we heard it was full of armed men who would fight to the last. But they ran and hid from us. We were very sorry, because we expected more battle. We have lost face."

When European troops took Bush's Virginia bunker compound in January 2005, the war was over. The now-famous video of Bush surrendering to female Danish troops, which was immediately broadcast over the former US, convinced many loyal "Bush-babies" to lay down their arms. A UN psychologist says, "When the Yankees saw their Commander-in-Chief crawling to the Danes on his knees, begging for his life and promising to 'name names,' it was as if they had been slapped awake."

The task facing UN forces now is "De-Bushification" of the occupied US. UN Courts will soon convene to try several thousand Yankee suspects held for Crimes against Humanity that claimed as many as 60 million victims from Kuala Lumpur to Oslo. Some of the most influential "chickenhawks," including Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney, have agreed to testify in exchange for immunity. A British military lawyer preparing the UN's case says, "This lot have turned on each other like rats in a trap, squealing at full pitch."

While the top Bu****es face stiff sentences, the ordinary Yankee will be treated with mercy. UN officials who have researched pre-war Yankee psychology stress that the ordinary Yankee "kubik" (derived from "cubicle-slave," a derisive term for Yankee workers) was a victim of the Bu****es. "The kubiks were virtual serfs, working 70 hours a week with no medical care or childcare. There was daily propaganda designed to keep them in a state of terror. Anyone who spoke up was punished. They had no choice but to obey."

The UN faces the task of de-Bushification with a mixture of kindness and firmness. Standing amid the rubble of what was once Dallas, Private Thierry Berenge (UN/France) wipes the sweat from his brow and says quietly, "We should be merciful. After all, Europe was once as savage as America."

P.S. Bu****es — B u meatball e s
« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 03:02:12 AM by --am-- »

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10163
report 03-28-03
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2003, 03:04:40 AM »
Good God!  Could you imagine the catastrophy if this was a Russian mechanized war in the Iraqi desert.

Love the russians.  When they arent getting their bellybutton kicked by cave dwelling 3rd worlders, everyone else is.

Dear comrade.  Lets reconnoiter in 90 days and see just who is shooting at who.

And if its the russian army fighting the american army somewhere NE of Baghdad then my bet is your nations largest cities are incinerated a good 30 minutes before ours are.

What ya wanna bet, commrad?

For what its worth, I much prefer the good old cold war over what we have now.  At least that way we knew the cooridnates of the great population centers on the crimea plains (psss, we still do).
 
As it is, I bet you dorks are behind this whole rancid arab affair.

Long live the Tridents!

MRVs Rule and dont you forget it mister!
« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 03:07:41 AM by Yeager »
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
report 03-28-03
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2003, 03:11:43 AM »
Isnt it funny how the guy who is telling us the american media is not reporting the war accurately, is himself using  CNN as a source?

:D

Offline --am--

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
report 03-28-03
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2003, 03:14:03 AM »
If I shall use Russian sources you tell that it is a forgery.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
report 03-28-03
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2003, 03:27:49 AM »
LOL ... you can say that again. ;)

Quote
Originally posted by --am--
If I shall use Russian sources you tell that it is a forgery.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
report 03-28-03
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2003, 03:29:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by --am--
If I shall use Russian sources you tell that it is a forgery.

 

But your stance is that US sources are forgeries.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
report 03-28-03
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2003, 03:47:33 AM »
This stuff is priceless! :)

I look forward to each and every nightly installment of the "am report". Please keep it coming!

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: report 03-28-03
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2003, 04:25:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by --am--
March 28, 2003, 1448hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - According to the latest intercepted radio communications ...


What Is An AFDB?[/size]
 
An Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (AFDB) is a type of headwear that can shield your brain from most electromagnetic psychotronic mind control carriers. AFDBs are inexpensive (even free if you don't mind scrounging for thrown-out aluminium foil) and can be constructed by anyone with at least the dexterity of a chimp (maybe bonobo). This cheap and unobtrusive form of mind control protection offers real security to the masses. Not only do they protect against incoming signals, but they also block most forms of brain scanning and mind reading, keeping the secrets in your head truly secret. AFDBs are safe and operate automatically. All you do is make it and wear it and you're good to go! Plus, AFDBs are stylish and comfortable.

What are you waiting for? Make one today!



* FOOTNOTE: The American spelling** of aluminum is used here. If you are searching for more information on aluminum, be aware that the British spell it "aluminium" (and pronounce it accordingly).

** HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE: Aluminum was originally named "alumium" by Sir Humphry Davy, who later changed it to "aluminum" (perhaps in an attempt to make it more Latinized since alumen is Latin for alum, the aluminum compound that the name is derived from). The British (and allied English speakers) shortly thereafter changed the name once more, this time to "aluminium" so that it would again match the pattern of most other elements (helium, sodium, etc.), while the North Americans eventually decided to keep the second, slightly more traditional name. I predict that North Americans will adopt the more regular "-ium" spelling by the year 2050, prompting the British to start calling it "alumininium". At that point debate can begin on changing "platinum" to "platinium"

Quick Instructions For Building An AFDB[/size]


    • 1  Get a five foot sheet of aluminum foil (standard one foot wide Reynolds Wrap brand will do nicely.)

    • 2  Fold the sheet four times into five equal segments so that you end up with a 1x1 foot square, making sure that you fold over the dull side of the foil leaving the square shiny on both sides.
       
    • 3  Use scissors to cut from one corner of the square to the center, making a straight line.

    • 4  Bend the foil from one side of the cut under the other, making a slight cone. Again, make sure that the outside of the cone has a shiny side of the foil; this is VERY important.
       
    • 5  Place the cone on your head and squash the top and sides to make it fit snugly.

    • 6  Apply Scotch tape liberally making sure to secure the cut in the foil and any form-fitting creases made in step 5.

    • 7  Use more tape to secure AFDB to your cranium.


    A Note About The Shiny Side:[/size]

    It can't be stressed enough how important it is to have the shiny side pointing out. This is needed because the shiny side is most reflective to psychotronic radiation, while the dull side can actually, in certain environmental conditions, absorb it. However, as is illustrated in the instructions above, it is also wise to complement this with a layer of foil pointing shiny side in. This will keep your brain waves, which are also reflected by the shiny side, from being picked up by mind-reading equipment. There is a small number of aluminum foil researchers who believe that this may cause an alpha-wave harmonic to build up in the skull resulting in memory loss or pseudo-religious visions, but their findings have never been replicated by the aluminum foil research community at large. Even if their findings are validated, the risk involved is small compared to the potential of mind-intrusion.

    Foil Thickness:[/size]

    How thick is your aluminum foil? Find out using Zapato Productions Intradimensional's Aluminum Foil Thickness formula :

    ((mass / 2.702) / (width * length)) * 10000 = thickness in microns

    *If your foil is less than 16 microns, increase the number of layers used in construction.

    Optional:[/size]

    You may augment your AFDB with random bits of foil, wire, small electronic parts, etc..

    Canadian coins should also be considered as they are high in nickel content. Nickel, while not having the psychotronic deflecting properties of aluminum (or even tin), can act to refract psychotronic beams, thereby helping to scrambling the mind control signals as they are deflected off of the underlying aluminum surface of the AFDB. This will result in a lowered chance of retransmission of the signal.

    However, you should avoid American and European coins at all costs as they contain aluminum based mind control circuitry. Canadian coins are free of this threat mainly due to the Canadian government's choice of neglecting psychotronic research in favor of research into giant robotics.

    Tips:[/size]
    • Tinsel is made of plastic and has no anti-psychotronic attributes.
    • Painting your AFDB won't degrade its abilities, so you can be mentally safe AND color-coordinated too!
    • "Beer can hats", though made out of aluminum cans, are not as effective as an AFDB since they have gaps inbetween the cans. You may, however, line a beer can hat with an AFDB or even glue the cans directly on an AFDB.
    « Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 04:30:49 AM by Arlo »

    Offline akak

    • Silver Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 986
        • http://www.479thraiders.com
    report 03-28-03
    « Reply #12 on: March 29, 2003, 04:55:50 AM »
    Quote
    Originally posted by --am--
    If I shall use Russian sources you tell that it is a forgery.


    Whoever writes these 'reports' should try getting a job as a comedy writer, he sure has a knack for it.

    Ack-Ack

    Offline akak

    • Silver Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 986
        • http://www.479thraiders.com
    Re: report 03-28-03
    « Reply #13 on: March 29, 2003, 06:20:12 AM »
    Quote
    Originally posted by --am--


    First firefights between troops of the US 82nd Airborne Division...





    Hmmm...the 173rd Airborne Brigade is up on the northern front in Iraq, I don't think the 82nd is even in country, as they were conducting operations in Afghanistan just a few days ago.


    Ack-Ack

    Offline --am--

    • Parolee
    • Copper Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    report 03-28-03
    « Reply #14 on: March 29, 2003, 10:09:45 AM »
    Quote
    Originally posted by Yeager
    Long live the Tridents!



    relax