• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Leftist group laments Trump’s MOAB bombing of “marginalized” Islamic State jihadis

Apr 14, 2017 8:25 am By Robert Spencer

Which side are Leftists generally on? Any side that is opposite that of the safety and well-being of Americans.

“‘March for Science’ Group Laments Trump’s Bombing Of ‘Marginalized’ ISIS Fighters,” by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, April 13, 2017:

The organization behind the “March for Science” tweeted the Trump administration’s bombing Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan is “an example of how science is weaponized against marginalized people.”

The march’s Twitter account sent out the tweet lamenting the bombing in reply to a post by activist Zellie Imani with the Black Liberation Collective — a group of students dedicated to “bringing about freedom and liberation for all Black people.”

The “March for Science” is being organized by activist scientists and environmentalists opposed to the Trump administration’s policies and proposed cuts to federal agencies. The march is planned for D.C. on Earth Day April 22.

March organizers eventually deleted the tweet, but not before meteorologist Ryan Maue captured screenshots.

The U.S. military for the first time dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb on Islamic State, or ISIS, targets in Afghanistan Thursday.The Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, struck an ISIS tunnel complex at 7:32 p.m. local time. A MOAB is 30 feet long and weighs about 20,000 pounds. It’s the first time the MOAB has been used in combat.

“Really another successful job,” Trump said of the strike Thursday. “We’re very, very proud of our military. We are so proud of our military and it was another successful event.”…

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Donald Trump, Featured, Leftist/Islamic Alliance, Useful idiots Tagged With: March for Science


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. JIMJFOX says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 8:49 am

    Thermobaric / FAE/ Volumetric weapons are [I think] far cheaper than a $300 million MOAB, surely?

    • marc says

      Apr 14, 2017 at 11:25 am

      $300m to develop, but $16m is the unit price
      http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/04/13/Heres-How-Much-Mother-All-Bombs-Costs

      • JIMJFOX says

        Apr 15, 2017 at 2:29 pm

        Again, I blindly accepted the ‘reported’ cost, even when thinking “surely a single chemical explosive weapon CAN’T cost that much, no matter how big”. Thanks for the correction- $16 M is more credible. I suppose one might argue that the 300 M is not entirely false, given only one has actually been used. So the answer must be to use many more to get value for money?

    • DFD says

      Apr 14, 2017 at 2:08 pm

      JimFox

      Yes indeed, FAE ~50MJ/kg whilst TNT is about 5, and Torpex ~6MJ/kg. Thus approx 800-900kg for the FAE, plus container. For the MOAB, approx 8-9 tonnes (metric) plus container.

      Mind you, the MOAB is, I believe, specifically designed as pinpoint bunker buster, hence its GPS guidance system.

      However, the same effect, or better, could have been achieved using several FAEs, and would have been a lot cheaper. Though not as “eye catching”. Remember the use of FAEs in the last gulf war. Because the concussions registered worldwide, some people thought initially that tactical nukes were used. Understandably since the the initial decompression wave pressure is about 200 bars for an FAE, and about 20/22 bars for TNT/Torpex. Dropping a few of these over a tunnel structure would have had the same, if not greater effect. The downward part of the decomp wave would have caused the tunnels to collapse, whilst those further away in the tunnels would have also gotten ‘a problem’. At least a pulmonary one.

      • Phil Copson says

        Apr 14, 2017 at 6:52 pm

        Britain had a 10-ton (Imperial) bomb in service at the end of WW2. The “earthquake” effect could bring down bridges and blow up the heavily reinforced German U-boat pens from underneath, negating the protection of their massively thick roofs.
        Barnes Wallis’ invention was called the “Grand Slam” bomb; maybe the MOAB should be known henceforth as the “Grand Is-Slam” bomb ?

        • Kris T says

          Apr 15, 2017 at 7:46 am

          That’s very creative.

      • Kris T says

        Apr 15, 2017 at 7:47 am

        That’s one of the most informative posts I’ve ever seen on this forum.

        • JIMJFOX says

          Apr 15, 2017 at 2:37 pm

          Seconded, Kris.

      • JIMJFOX says

        Apr 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm

        DFD-Another thank you is due- meticulous research, very illuminating. My reading has told me that the pressure wave can extend deep into fortifications, caves and tunnels and cause fatal or catastrophic injury to biological structures, rendering combatants disabled if not dead.
        Just what is needed for the kind of asymmetric warfare the terror groups favour.

      • JIMJFOX says

        Apr 15, 2017 at 2:41 pm

        My guess is the MOAB was chosen firstly because it would do the job and secondly for its psychological effect- furthermore, it said VERY LOUDLY “I, Donald Trump mean business and will do what is required; my name is NOT Obama”. Doubtless several Islamic leaders and one NK Fat Boy is paying attention.

      • JIMJFOX says

        Apr 15, 2017 at 4:01 pm

        Small question, DFD- ‘MOAB is, I believe, specifically designed as pinpoint bunker buster’
        Bunker buster is more indicative of a penetrator type weapon, whereas MOAB= Massive Ordnance Air Burst, even though it may achieve the desired effect.
        US military is designing a much lighter version for the penetrator function, using rocket propulsion plus a hardened shell to get the required depth before detonation. Much like
        Barnes Wallis’ Grand Slam & Tallboy bombs mentioned above, except light enough to be delivered by much smaller aircraft.

        • DFD says

          Apr 16, 2017 at 7:02 pm

          For JIMFOX,

          Hi,

          Indeed you are right, it’s Massive Ordnance Air Burst. Presumably one of these dual or even multi purpose devices. If it were purely limited to air burst, it would not have been used on tunnels.

          Now, before coming to the modern ones, a look at two British WW2 specialized bombs, namely the ones mentioned above. i.e., the grand slam, and they had even a 20 ton one. Their purpose was entirely different though, not bunker busting. That they have supposedly busted U-Boat bunkers is, wishful thinking by so-called experts, or simply ignorant post ww2 propaganda. Because if that were true, then the allies would have demolished every bunker at the Atlantic wall during the early hours of D-Day, thus zero resistance to the landing. Didn’t happen, did it? In fact, not a single one was dropped, not one bunker busted. What was their purpose then? To shake surface targets down, buildings, houses, factories etc. by miniature earthquakes.

          The logic and reasoning, and the argument from the designer of these: If an underground explosion, or preferably detonation (much higher decompression wave speed, see footnote) occurs, then the blast wave will be far more intense and further reaching then when the event occurs above ground. That is true and logic, consider this: If you use a mild explosive such as black powder, in the open, then that ‘stuff’ just burns, no explosion. Now place the substance into an enclosed and sealed container, and you get something called an ‘isochoric’ combustion, a high pressure event, or in layman’s terms, an explosion. ‘Isochoric’ means constant volume. So, the effect of detonating the weapon, grand slam etc., underground can be visualized or compared with sound waves. When sound is produced, the wave is **discontinues**. That means there is no real wave like on the surface of water for instance. What you get is that one molecule of air bumps into another one, or more, molecules of air. The result is that the pressure of a sound wave drops dramatically with distance, by the root of the cube! Now you know why you need bloody big and powerful amps if you really want to be LOUUUDDD! Even if you use horn speakers. Sound pressure is measured in dB (decibels) and that’s logarithmic, i.e., every 3db is a doubling of spl (sound pressure level), or, conversely, a halving. Thus, if you generate spl’s underground, the actual spl will be louder, stronger that is, and reach much further. Explanation: The molecules underground are much closer packed than above ground. Above ground there’s gas, air. Underground it’s solid substance. In that role the grand slam and its more massive (in the correct physical sense) sibling excelled as predicted by the designing engineer. Draw back: They were very, very expensive, hence rarely used. The expense was such that the bombers which didn’t unload these, for what ever reasons, had to land with the bomb on board!!!! Normal procedure: Drop ’em wherever it’s safe. They were, occasionally, used for other purposes too. One German Battleship for instance was sunk by one of these devices; in Norway I believe.

          So that’s the historical background for these.

          Now to the development of the modern bunker busters. These exist, but obviously, the military wants them to reach deeper. The casing is nothing secret, the metal is identical to the ones used on bulldozer blades, for instance. It’s penetration ability depends upon the release speed by the carrying craft, plus the acceleration due to the altitude of the releasing craft.

          So, how to get deeper?

          Answer: Extra propulsive force. Can’t be a rocket, the problem here is the relatively slow combustion rate with a simultaneously high heat release. The thing wont drill itself into the ground, it’s **not** a borer. Lengthy, even seconds, of exposure to high heat will cause premature detonation. What’s called the thing will be “cooked”. Consider, with a rocket you are looking at 2,500 to 3,500 centigrades. The bulk of that heat wont go up, because the earth around the impact collapses, thus it’s around the bomb body itself – bad idea. What is required is that upon impact, or just seconds, if not milliseconds, prior to impact a rapidly combusting charge is triggered, providing drive force in addition to that of the momentum imparted by gravity. Sounds simple, no? Such propulsive substances exist, they are called ‘gunpowders’. Unfortunately they require barrels to go from a high to a low pressure stage, and thus achieving heat to velocity conversion. But you don’t want a bomb with a gun barrel sticking to it. For once, it makes the bomb geometrically awkward to transport. Note here, the MOAB was carried by a 4 engined transport plane, prob a Hercules. For another, you want as much explosive/detonative substance to be transported into the target. Otherwise you may skip the operation in the first place. So, the barrel will add mass, and thus reduce available or required destruction mass. The propulsive charge is no featherweight either. That’s the problem the designers wrestle with – and haven’t found a satisfying answer yet. Contradicting physical requirements, and that means expensive!

          Footnote: The difference between an explosion and a detonation. Both are combustion processes. If the flame propagation speed of the combustion process is below the speed of sound {M1} (330m/s at sea level (~1,083 ft/s)) then it’s called burning. If the combustion process is between M1 and M2.5 it’s called an explosion. If it’s greater than M2.5 it’s a detonation. Depends on the text book of course. Some take explosions to be up to M2, others up to M3. Have your pick.

          Footnote 2: If the temperature **AND** the decompression wave are high and fast enough, then you get an actual wave. Such detonations leave a vacuum behind, with the air then slamming backward at high speed, restoring the equilibrium state required by nature. If you study detonations and explosions backward, which is how it’s normally done, you will actually see this. Particularly on large explosion such as nukes. That’s one of the reasons for the mushroom cloud. The other is of course super fast convection. That’s why nukes are effective but inefficient. Effectiveness and efficiency are not the same, they are different concepts altogether.

          Summa sumarium, whilst it is easier to destroy than to build, from a certain point on it becomes nearly as expensive… FORTUNATELY!!!!!

        • Phil Copson says

          Apr 17, 2017 at 9:27 pm

          For JIMJFOX / DFD – (DFD – no “Reply” button on your post, so adding to JIM’s)

          Am sure that you are mistaken when you refer to “…the Grand Slam and….it’s more massive sibling…”. The “Grand Slam” at 10 tons was itself the massive sibling to the smaller “Tallboy” weighing 12,000 lbs / 5.35 tons.
          Am going from my memory of reading Paul Brickhill’s book “The Dambusters” in writing this – excellent account of Barnes Wallis of Vickers and 617 Squadron of the RAF – read it if you haven’t already. Have to admit that I haven’t read it since I was 18 or so, which is now erm…ahem…some years ago, but Google/Wikipedia confirmed the names of two targets.
          I simply don’t believe that there was ever a 20-ton bomb constructed or considered by Vickers; it could never have been carried.
          Barnes Wallis was chief designer at Vickers, and designed the twin-engined Wellington bomber. He intended the “Grand Slam” ten-ton bomb to be carried by the “Victory” bomber he designed, but the Air Ministry did not award a contract for bomber and bomb, believing the concept to be unnecessary.
          His “earthquake bomb” principle was based on his calculation that a single large explosion magnified by the compressive effects of exploding underground or underwater rather than in thin air, could degrade the German industrial/military infrastructure by demolishing hydro-electric dams, bridges, fortifications etc, and that this would be a more effective way of waging war than simply killing combatants on the battlefield.
          The explosion has to be caused by an accurately-placed bomb (the US Norden bomb-sight ?) of sufficient size in an especially-designed casing, rather than by showering the target with scores of small bombs. The technique was proved by the “bouncing bomb” used in the Dams Raid; an air-launched torpedo couldn’t be used because of the anti-torpedo netting, so Wallis designed a bomb-casing that could withstand the impact of striking the water, travel across the surface until it hit the face of the dam, sink to the base of the dam to gain the compressive effect of the water multiplying the shock-wave, and only then explode.
          The easy way to think of it is to compare a blow-lamp with a car engine; you put liquid fuel into a blow-lamp and it burns in free air producing heat but no thrust; put your blow-lamp down and it hasn’t even got enough thrust to fall over. However, put fuel into a car engine, atomise it via carburation/injection, compress the air/fuel mix with a piston in a cylinder by a factor of approx 10:1 (higher for diesel) and the contained expansion force is so great that a single gallon of fuel can propel a one-and-a-quarter ton car for 50 – 60 miles. (Not so many for my ’59 Coupe de Ville or Olds Rocket 98….)
          Despite this success, there was still no contract for the Victory bomber and it’s ten-ton bomb, but the development of improved explosive (RDX ?) meant that Wallis was able to scale the bomb down to the 12,000 lbs Tallboy which the new 4-engined bombers could carry.
          More powerful engines in the Lancaster bomber finally allowed Wallis to go ahead with his original 10-ton Grand Slam.
          Casing design and manufacture for both bombs was a precision engineering job involving hardened machined-steel and castings rather than a simple pressed and fabricated sheet-steel casing.
          These development and manufacturing delays meant that the bombs only came into service in mid ’44.
          It is not myth or propaganda that the RAF successfully destroyed U-boat pens with these bombs; Wallis himself travelled to see the site once liberated, and commented that the Germans would have done much better to have put 20 feet of concrete UNDER the pens than on top.
          Both types of bomb were used at the time of the Normandy landings; in order to prevent a Panzer battalion from reaching Normandy, the bombs were used to destroy the Saumur rail tunnel. The vast La Coupole V2 rocket-firing site was also taken out. Google confirmed the names of the tunnel and rocket-firing sites which I couldn’t recall.
          Am sure that the book also mentioned these bombs being used against the V3 long-range super-guns set into the French cliffs too, but didn’t see this mentioned on Google. (About 20 years ago, a British super-gun scientist was apparently trying to flog his ideas to an Arab country, and got himself assassinated by Mossad for his pains….)
          No recollection of any mention of Tallboys/Grand Slams being used on the Normandy coast fortifications. The German battle-ship destroyed by Tallboys in a Norwegian fjord was the Tirpitz. (so not just “any” battle-ship…)
          I’m no rocket expert, but your comments re rocket-propulsion on bombs sound way wide of the mark to me. Why would a few seconds of heat set off the explosive charge ? You couldn’t possibly conduct enough heat in a few seconds to do that. It doesn’t happen on an ICBM travelling part-way around the world with plenty of time for heat-soak, and the Apollo astronauts weren’t fried by being fired into space by the biggest rocket motors ever made, followed by a 3-day journey. Plenty of conduction time there…. Rockets don’t combust their propellant in a single huge explosion or explode their warheads, 2.5k to 3.5k degrees Centigrade or not, because controlled burning was mastered decades ago. Simple ceramic tiles prevent space-craft from burning up on re-entry, so I’m certain that resisting a few seconds burn on a rocket-propelled bomb would be child’s play. Again, explosives aren’t my subject,but surely they are fired by percussion rather than heat ? Explosives vary obviously, but I can recall reading of a wartime bomb actually having it’s explosive content removed by playing heat on the opened casing, so presumably some types liquefy rather than exploding at moderate heat.
          I feel rather dubious about your comments re gunpowder and barrels too; the point of containing an explosion in a breech and barrel is that whatever is acting as a plug in the barrel will be expelled out of it by the massive expansion of the explosive charge. Putting a gun barrel on the back of a bomb and firing a charge would surely achieve next to nothing, as the bomb is not in the barrel. (Though with nothing in the barrel, it wouldn’t have to be as heavily constructed – you have massively strong breech and barrel to make sure that the explosive pressure is contained and can only be released by pushing the shell out of the barrel. With no projectile there, you haven’t got the same pressure within the barrel anyway.)
          As for driving the bomb into the target with greater force, surely it would be better to have it work on the principle of armour-piecing shells ? ie – an initial explosion breaching the surface milliseconds before the destructive part enters the structure ?

        • DFD says

          Apr 18, 2017 at 5:43 pm

          Phil Copson
          ==========.

          Thank you for your reply, first of all it is always a pleasure to receive thoughtful replies. Most aren’t and are often, as I just found out again somewhere else, severely lacking and completely missing the points.

          To commence, it appears that I stand on two accounts corrected, I also have to correct you, and perhaps shed light on some matters you are asking, or you seem are unsure about.

          You are right with the tall boy and the grand slam, I somehow referred to 20,000lbs. as 20 tonnes. My mistake, probably too quick, since 20,000kg = 20 tonnes. It proves that even I make mistakes 🙂

          Likewise, I did not know about the U-Boat bunkers, though that does not negate the error of assuming it to be a bunker buster as such. It was primarily, as I said and as you confirmed, to be used underground to generate greater shock waves than possible within a gaseous environment such as air.

          You are however mistaken about the dam buster bomb. These were not designed to sink to the ground where they could have caused only small damage. If you look at the cross section of a hydro-dam you can easily why. The further down, the wider the dam’s cross section, over-proportionally. Consider that every ten meters (~33ft.) water pressure increases by 1 bar (~atmosphere) over ambient pressure. That will also explain the problem with deep sea research and diving depths, think about the Pacific, at a depth of 10km (~6.2mi) the pressure is a whopping 1 kilo bar, about 1,000 atmospheres! The design idea for the bomb/attack was to break a good portion on or at the top of the dam, thus render the dam inoperational for power generation purposes. Which it did. The top of a dam is its weakest part. Consider here that steel reinforced concrete is rather expensive, and particularly transporting large volumes of it. The design of the bomb posed two contradicting problems. For one, it resulted in a lifting body (explain in a moment), which was partially desired since a lifting body would permit a higher release speed and altitude – the Germans didn’t welcome British bombers. On the other hand, a lifting body interfered with the bouncing process, which was required to get away from the thing. If you drop a big bomb at low speed and low altitude, you want to run, quickly… Now to lifting bodies. Lifting bodies, you don’t need wings to fly, as long as you get a positive pressure difference and thus force difference (Pressure * Area = Force), you will have positive lift. It can even be as simple as upthrust. A good example are golf balls. The concept of the lifting body was first postulated and investigated by a French engineer in the 20’s. It never led to anything useful. In the late 50s and early 60s the Americans (it was the Bell company if I recall correctly, I was a kid) have produced a number of (weird looking) test planes. The idea was to have a re-entry vehicle that would ride, or rather surf, on the compression that would develop underneath the craft. There is something called a “compressibility factor” for gases, which is very pronounced in the transonic region, just below the sound barrier. It is this what forms the actual barrier. They were dropped from air craft, probably B52s as used by NASA, but the test pilots hated them, they shook intensely… They flew, but not the way it was hoped for. So, these two opposing effects were to overcome for an extremely short and slow period, and the British engineers managed that. If you look at the damage caused to the dams, it was at the top, outward, following the flight and thus fall direction of the weapon. So the designs of the tall boy, its sibling the grand slam (or the other way round) were no related to the bouncing bombs, completely different aims {pardon the pun} and thus parameters.

          You then continue to mention combustion processes, and fuels. You are partially or largely correct. But in a different way than you think, or stated. First of all, pressure doesn’t make an engine more efficient, it makes it more effective, as Rudolf Diesel has pointed out. Consider here the gas turbines used in central Europe from about 15th century onwards to approx the middle of the 19th century. These were pure gas turbines, but since these had no compressors as per the Brayton cycle, they were useless, except for smoking bacon, sausages etc., which were attached to the turbines buckets and went round and round – yummy yummy. These machines were called smoke mills, a) because of the smoke, and b) because of what they did. They did however inspire Sidi Carnot, who thought about it, came up with the fundamentals of thermodynamics and summed these in his famous book “The Motive Power of Fire!” Thus was borne thermodynamics and we were able to invent decent steam engines, internal combustion engines etc. My special field as an engineer is thermodynamics, and believe me, Sidi Carnot ought to be sanctified. Without him we’d still be on horse back, carriages or walking… His cycle incidentally is still the measure of all things where heat to work conversion is concerned. Even solar cells! Rankine, Brayton etc. are just adaptations and modifications. The Otto cycle for instance is an adaption of the Brayton cycle, because at this point in time pistons, cylinders and valves allowed a decent control of the thermodynamic and stoichiometric processes. The original Brayton cycle incidentally is the one according to which all modern gas turbines operate/function.

          So, how come your mileage to the gallon and the fuel? The fuel contains 99% carbon in the case of gasoline/petrol and has a thermal value of 50MJ/kg (~21,500 BTU/lb.) This should interest you, diesel for instance has “only” 40-45MJ/kg (17,200-19,300 BTU/lb), depending upon quality and type. So, how come diesel gets you farther or further then petrol, it is the compression/decompression ratio, the fuel pressure is thermodynamically neigh irrelevant, though the fuel temperature does play a role, depending upon the fuel to air mass, depending again upon the type of fuel. Generally speaking, you want between 15:1 and 17:1. It’s the air pressure. Unfortunately the compressors (whatever type) are suckers, vampires for money. In a land based gas turbine for instance about 75% of the fuel is gobbled up by the compressors… Now you understand why such fortunes are spend on compressor research, regardless if mechanically or gas-wise driven. Back to the bombs.

          Yes, it’s that precision engineering why they were so expensive, as I mentioned in my post. And as I said, they actually had to land with them if they couldn’t find a target. So expensive they were – the aircrews must have been sweating blood and water. The La Coupole V2 was indeed partially destroyed by these, and other time delayed bombs. They didn’t manage to destroy them as such, but put the structures out of alignment. The German generals must have been cheesed off. They told the idiot that mobile sites are cheaper, reusable and easy to hide. But he overrode them, as so often with his bullocks. Hitler was obsessed with bunkers, strength… Personal remark, that the Germans were able to fight for 5+ years, being dramatically outnumbered, British Empire, USA and Soviet Union, plus the Mickey Mouse powers, is actually a miracle considering that that nincompoop of a Corporal interfered with every important military decision. If the German generals had things their way, then the second world war, by the time it reached Europe in 39, would have began in Europe with long range rockets, jet fighters and bombers – but the idiot and his Nazis decided otherwise, Fortunately for us…

          You mentioned V3 super guns, never heard of these, so I can’t comment, sorry.

          As I said, they tall boys weren’t used in Normandy at all, so that’s why you have no recollection for this. They weren’t able to bust those bunkers, they were steel reinforced concrete, from the floor to the roof – nothing to shake. They weren’t direct hit weapons, but indirect, underground. That that battle ship in Norway was the Tirpitz, aha, for me it’s just a battleship. I am not a military buff. Unless it’s about money or historical significance – or thermodynamics.

          That now leads to the rockets you mentioned. You misread something I said, but as a result you partially agreed. Apart from that. You have a number of misconceptions there and lack of know how. Same with explosions and the types concerned.

          Unfortunately its getting late, I am hungry, hadn’t my dinner yet. Also, my doggy needs a lot of care, he’s around 17, blind and suffers from arthritis – and he is the best friend I ever had. So, if you are interested, please advise and I will conclude this tomorrow.

          Again thanks for your response. It’s always nice seeing somebody interested and thinking about whatever matter or subject is concerned.

        • Phil Copson says

          Apr 19, 2017 at 6:17 am

          Thank you for your comments DFD – look forward to reading the remainder as and when you have time to post them. If nothing else, it has pushed me to buy a replacement copy of “The Dambusters” *

          I don’t think that I am “wrong” about the bouncing bomb used in the dams attack; I may have mis-remembered the depth at which it was set to go off, but my point in relation to the Tallboy/Grand Slam bombs was that the principle of a large explosion at depth to create a shock-wave through the substrate had been proved by the success of the dams raid.

          I wasn’t commenting on any similarity in casing design, impact velocity etc, because, of course, there wasn’t any. The bouncing bomb was dropped from very low altitude to get max forward motion rather than vertical descent / reduce the impact on the casing / lower bounce height improved accuracy, ie more forward motion compared to vertical bouncing etc, whereas Tallboys and Grand Slams were dropped conventionally from height to get vertical entry at max velocity.

          But to take you up on your comments, neither the aircraft nor the bouncing bomb used any kind of “surface effect” – the casing was a cylinder which was set spinning before release and struck the water like a rotating wheel, bouncing off the surface due to it’s very flat trajectory until it struck the face of the dam – (Wallis recalled that Royal Navy gunners had used the same effect during the Napoleonic Wars; rather than elevating their guns to improve range – which has the disadvantage that at the end of it’s trajectory the cannon-ball will be dropping nearer the vertical, so great range accuracy is required to drop the cannon-ball on target – especially difficult when fired from a ship which is rolling due to waves, wind, recoil etc – they depressed the barrel instead, so that (A) the range was extended by the bounce – (eg – a pebble will bounce and skim further than you can throw it…) – and (B) after striking the surface, the cannon-ball then continued near horizontally towards the side of the French ship – an easier shot altogether.) You would get the same effect in a vacuum, no air-compressibility required.

          The low release-height/explosion wasn’t a problem since the forward progress of the bomb was arrested by the dam – this plus the time taken to sink to the set depth to activate the pressure-fuse meant that the aircraft was well clear before the bomb exploded. (Though one aircraft was lost when the pilot misjudged the release point – the bomb cleared the dam and exploded beneath the aircraft. Thought: Why – if it was a pressure-fuse ? never considered this point until now….Did it have a time-fuse as well, to be certain that the Germans couldn’t recover any bomb that didn’t go into the water ? If so, it was definitely a bit on the short side….)

          Air-compressibilty was found to be a problem during the Tallboy trials. As the bomb approached the sound-barrier, the compressibility effects caused it to wobble and deflect the aim. The fins were then off-set to make it spin and maintain stability.

          (Off-topic, but talking of the sound-barrier and tail-fin design, look up the “Miles M-52”. The British government cancelled this project at a very late stage and passed the the info to the US. The Bell X-1 may have gone through the sound-barrier, but it incorporated design ideas from the Miles M-52 to resolve it’s tail-plane problems first. There is also a school of thought that says that the Hawker Hunter had gone supersonic (and remember that this is a service aircraft, not a one-off research machine) before the X-1. Even more off-topic, but the jet aircraft produced by the British aircraft industry immediately post-War, were fantastic. From the Lancaster to the Vulcan in one bound ! The Hawker Hunter, Handley-Page Victor, English Electric Canberra bomber (achieved 70,000+ feet in 1957, and was adopted by the US Airforce, three still used by NASA), English Electric Lightning interceptor – incredible 60,000 ft/min climb rate, out-climbs aircraft made umpteen years later – Mirage, MiG 21, Tornado F3, Starfighter, Eagle etc and still used for intercepting Russian Tupolevs probing British airspace until 1988. Known to have intercepted a U2 at 88,000 feet – lucky the RAF had them and not the Russians…)

          May have been solely intended as an earthquake bomb rather than a bunker-buster (won’t comment until re-read account of Barnes Wallis’ design) but the weight/velocity and great casing-strength (hardened steel nose, cast casing) for deep earth penetration, certainly allowed it to penetrate concrete roofs if a direct hit was scored.

          Don’t recall max thickness of concrete it is known to have penetrated, but the Normandy coast fortifications were built in a hurry at Rommel’s instigation once he realised that the Normandy coast was a probable invasion area, and were nothing like as heavily-built as the submarine pens, La Coupole etc. Much is still there in Normandy – (including sections of the Mulberry Harbour off Arromanches beach) – but I didn’t think to take a tape-measure…..) I would personally guess that a Tallboy would penetrate a few feet of concrete over pill-boxes, gun emplacements etc with no trouble at all, in addition to it’s ability to move the foundations. Pill-boxes aren’t that big – a 5.5 ton bomb nearby would shift it, if it didn’t fracture it.
          Interesting thought that if the Tallboy had entered service sooner and it’s potential been fully realised, it could then have been mass-produced by the British, Canadian, and American armaments industries and been a factor in reducing the Normandy fortifications. With the Allied air-superiority, accurate daylight bombing with Tallboys would have been possible, and more effective than the conventional bombing and the naval barrage which left the German defences largely intact.
          The slaughter on the beaches may have been avoided, the Germans would have had less time to rush reinforcements to Normandy, and therefore the Allies would have broken out of Normandy more quickly and been into Holland and Germany weeks sooner. Would Eisenhower then have sat back and allowed the Russians to advance as far as they did, taking Berlin and turning the newly “liberated” countries of eastern Europe into the post-War Communist Bloc ? If only, if only……
          * “The Dambusters” was turned into a classic war film, with Michael Redgrave as Barnes Wallis – treat yourself to a copy. It was restored and given a new cinema release for one night only several years ago in Britain, and to my surprise, the cinema was packed, and at the end of the film the audience applauded, something I had never known before. Made me realise that there are more conservative-minded, patriotic people still about than I had thought.

        • DFD says

          Apr 19, 2017 at 5:27 pm

          For JIMFOX

          Sorry pal, has to be tomorrow. Rgds, DFD

        • DFD says

          Apr 20, 2017 at 4:24 pm

          For Phil Copson / JIMFOX

          OK, next bit, you mentioned certain things about rockets, combustion speeds and heat transfers.

          Let’s commence with the rockets, first of all, there are two primary methods to propel these, which are in use today. One is powered by rocket motors, the other by rocket engines. The former refers to solid fuel ones, the latter to liquid fuelled ones. The reason for going into this detail has to do with your comment or question in reference to convection heat, and the subject matter at hand. Of side interest, you may like to know: The modern liquid fuelled rocket is generally held to be a German invention. Actually it’s German – British. The Germans did the engine part. But the body, the shell they used for the V2/A4 was far too heavy, it was an airframe, which was partially designed to help lift; remember the lifting bodies I mentioned above? Then, early 50s, the English came up with the following idea: ‘Run the thing without a body! And attach the engine directly!’ What they proposed, and nowadays it is standard design, was as follows. Keep the two tanks, fuel and oxidizer, pressurized so they wont collapse due to a negative pressure difference when the contained fluid disappears into the engine. Now attach the engine to one end of a tank. On top of the tank a small frame, and place the other tank on top of that frame. Next, another tiny frame on top of this (upper) tank and finally the payload onto this frame. The weight saving was enormous, the modern rocket was born. These are vastly superior to their solid fuelled relations – unfortunately over proportionally more expensive. Can’t have everything… I trust you can see why such a design is totally unsuitable for a drive system for the bomb you suggested.

          Neither is a solid fuelled one, but for different reasons.

          Now to your questions or thoughts about heat **dissipation**. You know what they look like, long and as thin as possible. The lower the cross section, the lower the air resistance. So, where does the heat go?

          If you have an **unrestricted** combustion process, the general tendency is for the combusted gas to form a sphere. So you have a spherical combustor (remember the Chrysler hemi’s? That’s why.) and an expanding nozzle, essentially a DeLaval nozzle. Originally developed for steam turbines. That allows you to expand the gas so rapidly that, with current technology, you reach about 10,000 mph gas speed! Solid fuel about 7,000mph. Of course, you can only go half as fast as the gas stream. At the most. It’s a recoil engine, thus 50% equals **theoretical** maximum.

          Now, if you look at the thing you will see that there’s still combustion occurring outside the nozzle – unfortunately! So, this heat wont go up. Further, Prof. Oberth’s team (including von Braun) noted during development that the combustor became extremely hot. And that high grade heat was radiated away from the combustor – and rising up, which is what it is supposed to do. This would have ignited the fuel in the tanks, contained within the enclosed frame, highly undesirable. Their solution was brilliant. They cooled the thing with the fuel, thus preheated the fuel, which increased the yield of the fuel, whilst recovering otherwise lost thermal energy, which increased efficiency. All modern rocket engines follow that design, to the letter.

          The heat shield, that was also one of your points. Before commencing consider the following: The beginning of space is generally held to be 100km or ~62miles. Escape velocity is 7 mi/sec. The V2/A4 reached and altitude of more than 100km. Be that as it may, assume for analytical purposes that the thing from the word go reached escape velocity, than it would require 8.9 seconds to reach space. Its actually lift off and maximum rise speed are irrelevant for the analysis. What is important is to consider that it starts within the highest density of air possible, i.e., ambient. After only 20km air density is already halved! And gets less and less and less. Thus the rocket will experience very, very little friction heat. The problem is on the way back, the opposite happens, the air gets thicker and thicker! Simultaneously, in addition to the actual speed of the rocket the gravitational pull increases, per second per second – and forces are accumulative… In case you wonder why those things get out into space in the first place, that’s because the force is applied continuously as long as the engine or motor operates.

          Now you know why there is no convection problem with rockets, including solid fuelled ones, these also eject, and thereby reject the heat out, that is rearward. The heat shielding is for the return job, mostly.

          OK, so why would a rocket be unsuitable for a bunker buster, apart from its fragility? Particularly, as you correctly noted, without knowing the reason, that there can’t be convection heat in rockets.

          Answer: The heat accumulation I was referring to is **not** convection heat, but **trapped** heat. Assume here that the impacting rocket-bomb combination would do what it is supposed to do, ideally. Namely penetrate into the earth, with the rocket staying intact – which it definitely wont do. What happens now? The earth behind this projectile will collapse, tending to bury thing. Same reason why unexploded bombs disappear and are found, by accident, many, many years later. So, when the earth behind the projectile collapses, where does the heat go? Can’t go anywhere, except into the earth and the projectile, thus “cooking” the bomb, and so the bomb will never reach its destination, i.e., the deep underground bunker.

          Right, that answers that, you had more questions and suggestions, ideas even. If you are still interested, I’ll be delighted to answer these. But it will have to be tomorrow or the day after that.

          Let me know if you want me to continue.

          PS: Nice to have a Dr. Engineer available who specialised in thermodynamics, stoichiometry (combustion) and propulsion systems, no?

      • gravenimage says

        Apr 16, 2017 at 7:19 pm

        Thanks, DFD.

  2. berserker says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 8:49 am

    Is it true that the tunnels were built by the CIA?

    As to the question of what side the lunatic fringe is on: the opposite side.

    • JIMJFOX says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 2:44 pm

      Is it true that the tunnels were built by the CIA?

      You tell us- where is the evidence? IF they were [& I don’t see how or why] is it relevant?
      Those using them are [well, now ‘were’ using them] are the pertinent issue.

  3. K. says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 9:01 am

    Umm, the only thing to lament maybe is the fact that a mere 36 hostile casualties is not very efficient for the expensive tool used. They’ll replace them like cockroaches.

    • Paul says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 8:33 am

      Structural integrity of the organization and its’ ability to wage war has also been severely degraded!

    • JIMJFOX says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 3:01 pm

      The ROI has risen dramatically- and the investigation of the site continues! It just gets better and better.
      “At least 94 ISIS militants were killed…”
      http://dennismichaellynch.com/moab-death-toll-isis-fighters-rises/

      Please take our poll — Do you support the dropping of the ‘mother of all bombs?’ [98.4%-YES!]

  4. mortimer says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 9:02 am

    The American lunatic Left is TROTSKYITES favoring eternal, unending REVOLUTION even after every element of the revolution is achieved. They simply want to KILL and GO ON KILLING.

    Anything that STOPS the killing is WRONG according to TROTSKYITES. KILLING IS THE GOAL, KILLING IS THE METHOD, KILLING IS THE PHILOSOPHY. KILLING IS THE ENJOYMENT.

    Troskyism is a perversion like SADISM.

    Anyone who is KILLING the defenders of freedom and democracy are to be killed. TROTSKYISM and ISLAM are both DEATH CULTS.

    When they are done KILLING their enemies, TROTSYISM and ISLAM cannibalize their own members to feed their insatiable SADISM.

  5. IQ al Rassooli says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 9:10 am

    The most efficient way of destroying Islam is by Discrediting Muhammad as a prophet and the alleged divine origin of his Quran as shown herein

    I dare any Muslim or any of their brain dead supporters to prove anything I reveal about the depraved Muhammad and Islam in this video as either wrong or false

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTuFA1fQ-yg&feature=youtu.be&a

    Please spread to all your contacts so that more people get enlightened about Islam’s threat to humanity

    IQ al Rassooli
    Kafir & Proud!

    • mortimer says

      Apr 14, 2017 at 9:18 am

      IQ, I understand your view, but I do not think most people will spend the time reading and studying the life of Mohammed… an extremely complicated and time-consuming activity… AS YOU more than anyone knows. We must remind people of what they already know, rather than introduce information they do not know and will view SUSPICIOUSLY and consider to be mere propaganda.

      At the moment, it is MORE EFFECTIVE to raise the problems within SHARIA LAW such as FGM, political assassination of verbal opponents of Islam, assassination of apostates, cruel and unusual Sharia punishments, child marriage, sex slaves.

      Western people are now aware of those problems and will respond to an argument based on WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW.

      • IQ al Rassooli says

        Apr 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm

        mortimer, thank you for your comments but you have missed the most relevant part of my message in this interview:

        Everything to do with Islam, Muslims, Muhammad, Sharia, Quran and Sunna are OBLITERATED in less than TEN minutes by simply PROVING beyond a shadow or even a reasonable doubt that no god called Allah or angel called called Jibril ever revealed ANYTHING to Muhammad who concocted the whole of his Quran while PRETENDING it is from Allah.

        Muhammad is Allah. PERIOD!

        All other explanations, theories, platitudes and explanations are IRRELEVANT and unnecessary

        Since Allah is NOT the God of the Bible, Islam is not a RELIGION. Islam is a CULT; the Cult of Muhammad

        Any challengers to prove me wrong?

        IQ al Rassooli
        Kafir & Proud!

        • JIMJFOX says

          Apr 15, 2017 at 3:19 pm

          I came to the same conclusion, IQ; far too many “revelations” came at just the right moment & were SO convenient in fooling Muhammad’s barbarians [sorry, ‘followers’]
          that even little Aisha noticed it.
          The most ridiculous of these were the ‘Satanic verses’ when Mo ‘dropped a clanger’ as the English vernacular has it. For those who don’t know, Mo tried to placate the polytheists by allowing worship of the three female deities dear to them, after clearly claiming there was ONE god whose name was ‘allah’.
          When the ensuing pandemonium broke out among his followers, he made up the story that Satan had spoken, pretending to be allah & that allah had ‘corrected him’.

          Then there are equally fatuous stories- the Buraq, the ‘Far Mosque’ [which was built decades later], his overnight flight to that mosque, then to the 7 heavens for a chat with the prophets and allah himself, then back home for a much needed mug of camel urine. [I made up that last bit]. Again, Aisha said he never left the room, was beside her all night & the Buraq episode was nothing but a dream.
          Sun setting in a muddy pool; salt/fresh waters forbidden to mix- an ‘inviolable barrier’; ants talking to King Solomon; talking rocks and trees- on & on go the ridiculous fables. EVERYTHING Muhammad claimed and said was WRONG.

      • Henner720 says

        Apr 14, 2017 at 1:32 pm

        Just a note. “Sharia law” is a pleonasm. Backing backward .munching eating spinning rotating. It matters as one’ness of slam is part of its totalitarian paradigme.in criticizing one needs to pinpoint precisly, not to be easy refuted and appear as a unknowing subject. Iow we know what the f……s are up to.

        • JIMJFOX says

          Apr 15, 2017 at 3:21 pm

          Or is it a redundancy? ‘Sharia’ being Islamic Law.

    • no_one says

      Apr 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm

      IQ, if islam is the religion of satan, we can’t fight them alone. We need the Lord, Jesus Christ. And this is the time of the year to glorify Him. Few people take vacation on Holy Friday to stand by the Lord while He is on the cross. This is the scary part, not the muslims.

      • JIMJFOX says

        Apr 15, 2017 at 3:25 pm

        Don’t be silly. There is zero evidence for any of the ‘Trinity’ or of ‘God’.
        He’s offered no help since the Creation, if I may use that equally silly term.
        JC has been noticeably absent from duty for over 2000 years, too.
        Not at all convincing, is it??

    • Kris T says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 7:48 am

      Keep up the great work.

  6. mortimer says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 9:12 am

    Correction: (According to the Trotskyites,) anyone who is KILLING the defenders of freedom and democracy are not to killed … until the Trotskyite don’t need them anymore. When Troskyites get all the power, only then will they ‘deal with’ the Muslims. In the USSR, Muslims were shipped to Siberia to die in the Gulag.

  7. no_one says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 10:00 am

    of topic. Today people lament something else. It has to do with the King of Christians

    • JIMJFOX says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 3:37 pm

      “Chris”[sic] must be famous! Very pretty entry, I must say. And entirely harmless, unlike…….

      “Under the Jurisdiction of the Ecumenichal [sic] Patriarchate of Constantinople”
      Had no idea such an office existed. Not recognised in Istanbul, eh?

      Even as an atheist, I like this for it’s beauty alone.

  8. john spielman says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 11:41 am

    these ISIS JIHADISTS were not ‘marginalized ‘ ; they were INCINERATED!

    • JIMJFOX says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 3:39 pm

      Oh, those poor, misunderstood marginalised babies!

  9. common sense says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 11:46 am

    Trump is commanding OUR air force not “acting” as ISIS air force. I think they got that now.
    If you missed it Trump has now given our SOD and JCOS carte blanche to act when they feel it’s necessary. I’m not sure if that is a good thing.

    • JIMJFOX says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 3:41 pm

      Oh, I am. Sure that is- in fact certain and delighted. When you understand Islam & Jihad you will come to know it respects ONLY superior force. And they got what they needed. Right on the button.

  10. Henner720 says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    Bet they dont feel themselves ‘marginalized’ , they rather feel omnipotent, halfworld covering spearheads firstmovers, than pitty patty innocent victoms of imperialism.they hold the key to world domination soon to come, a sidekick in islams winningpattern

  11. Godwin says

    Apr 14, 2017 at 4:15 pm

    The Taliban are endlessly being bombed. And this the Mother Of All Bombs. This is simply just Divine retribution for their bombing of the giant Buddhist Statues at Bumiyan in Afghanistan. They have planted the evil cause and now reap the bad effect. This Karmic Law always works

  12. mach37 says

    Apr 15, 2017 at 3:38 am

    Obama’s brainwashing of Democrats and Muslim apologists was complete, and will be hard to change. The Left’s general belief that everything American and white European is “Bad” has been embedded in some peoples’ brains like an incurable fungus.

    • JIMJFOX says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 3:42 pm

      Just like Islam, you mean?

  13. Anne Smith says

    Apr 15, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Good old Trump. He is certainly stirring things up – fantastic. In UK the BBC just don’t know what to make of it – their comments are asinine. One really wonders what side they are on – not the law abiding hard pressed Christians, that’s for sure.

    Let’s hope Donald wreaks plenty of havoc on ISIS with his new toys.

    • JIMJFOX says

      Apr 15, 2017 at 3:45 pm

      Anne, there is no doubt whose side the BBC is on. Did they not coin the obnoxious weasel phrase “South Asian”- a disgusting insult to non-Muslims living in that part of the world, who don’t murder in the name of their Faith?

    • Phil Copson says

      Apr 16, 2017 at 6:38 am

      The BBC is a disgrace; their reflex reaction is simply to sneer at and denigrate Trump at every opportunity. Had Obama attacked the airbase from which Assad had launched a chemical attack, and Obama’s spokesman said that Assad had surpassed Hitler in wickedness, then we can be certain that the Democrats, the BBC, the media, and Leftists world-wide would have fallen over themselves to congratulate Obama on his “statesmanlike reaction” / “humanitarian concern” / “enforcing his Red Lines” / “taking lessons from history” etc etc.
      (What would their reaction be if Trump set about enabling a terrorist-supporting Islamic country such as Somalia to acquire nuclear weapons and even funded it, as Obama did for Iran ? Very different from the “We don’t mind as long as it’s Obama doing it….” reaction to the Iran deal, I’m sure….)
      Because it’s the Trump administration, then they regard attacking Trump as being far more important than protecting civilians in Syria, defeating ISIS, containing North Korea, or preventing the Islamisation of America via CAIR, ISNA etc, and the West in general.

  14. gravenimage says

    Apr 16, 2017 at 7:15 pm

    Leftist group laments Trump’s MOAB bombing of “marginalized” Islamic State jihadis
    ……………………..

    Wouldn’t all decent people want to see bloody ISIS marginalized?

    Leftist rhetoric is often just retarded.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Crusades Were Right on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’
  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • curious george on Israel At A Crossroads?
  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • William Garrison on The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine (Part 3)

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.