Sunday, March 26, 2006

Camels of Mass Destruction

If the government in your town were so corrupt that everyone discontinued calling the police for help, then the new sheriff in town comes in to fix things... is there suddenly more violence and crime in the town because you're finally hearing about it?

If you answered "yes, there is more violence and we were safer under the previous sheriff," then here's your sign.

Here's hoping the "Iraq was safer with Saddam crowd" never finds themselves to be the victim of their own "logic."

Because things were just "better under Saddam...."

______________


By James Langton (with UnCommon Sense delivered by yours truly) and (guest "logic" from Bluestate Dave)
(
News.Telegraph)

Saddam Hussein planned to use "camels of mass destruction" (Where the hell is PETA when you need them?!) as weapons to defend Iraq, loading them with bombs and directing them towards invading forces.

The animals were part of a plan to arm and equip foreign insurgents (who don't exist, because they're all "Freedom Fighters" down there) drawn up by the dictator peace loving nation-builder shortly before the American-led invasion three years ago, reveals a 37-page report, captured after the fall of Baghdad and just released by the Pentagon. It is part of a cache of thousands of documents that the United States Department of Defense says it does not have the resources to translate (thanks to Democrat-led slashing of the Military Intelligence Corps).

Earlier this month, the Pentagon released copies in the original Arabic onto the internet in the hope that others would interpret them into English. (No word yet on whether the "American" Civil indecent-Liberties Union will file invasion of privacy grievances on behalf of Iraqi Freedom Fighters Terrorists).

Handwritten on official paper, one of the reports appears to be a road map for the insurgency future of Iraq, with detailed instructions for training what it calls suicide bombers terrorists.

In the memo, they are described as "estishehadeyeen," Arabic for suicide martyrs, and would almost certainly have been foreign volunteers terrorists.

The memo details a training commission to be headed by senior officers, including a colonel from the "Directory of Political Orientation." Their job, says the report, was to "prepare a very intensive training course operate a terrorist camp," "to raise the physical fitness and train in the use of Kalashnikovs and hand grenades."

It continues: "The largest section of the course will be specialized to focus on using the explosive material in the body, in motorcycle, in cars, and in camels freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness and all those neat things that just exist and have nothing to do with our Armed Services." Camels will be "provided by the Directory of General Military Intelligence."

The memo also reveals the incredible bureaucracy that underpinned Saddam's Iraq which was much safer back in the good-ol-Saddam-days. Rifles and hand grenades were to be provided by a Department of Armament and Equipping, explosives by the Directory of Military Engineering and "religious sermons that emphasise jihad'' by the Directory of Political Orientation and the Religious Scholars Terrorist Support Group.

The papers have been translated by Arabic-speaking members of Free Republic, a conservative internet discussion forum dirty rotten Rovian gang of thugs that believes the documents will justify British and American claims that Saddam had made Iraq a haven for terrorists nationalistic freedom fighters.

If the translation is correct, it suggests that many of the foreign fighters now attacking coalition forces and bombing Iraqi civilians were directly trained by the ever-peaceful Saddam regime, although there are no known reports of camels being used in suicide attacks.

25 comments:

Rick said...

Welcome back brother

Armand said...

I'm still in Baghdad.

I'll be delivering reality as I can from here.

Anonymous said...

Armand,

Good to hear from you. Keep your head down. Our prayers are with you.

~Wayne

Unknown said...

Oh, I thought you were back I got all excited seeing a post from you.

This one....if it weren't so f-ed up, it would be very funny.

Anonymous said...

(sarcasm)One day we liberals will have to face facts and accept that Saddam just IS NOT in power anymore and he never will be and the good Iraqi people will never feel the blessings of nerve gas, will never feel the joy of tyranny, will never be unable to express themselves without fear of reprisal again. We just have to accept, I guess, that the Iraqi's have to live with democracy, and everything that comes with it, like
a few people dying in suicide bombs daily, a few American boys and girls taking one for the team, and of course, a few beheadings and completely disrespectful treatment of probably ordinary citizens by insurgents.(/sarcasm)

The only people saying Saddam was a good ruler are so out of touch with reality that they should not even be considered; further, most people on the left understand and agree that Saddam was a problem.

We can go back and forth and say that one was bad and the other was bad and blah blah blah, or we can elevate the discussion. The reason a lot of non-pacifist people want a withdrawal from Iraq is not because they didn't support the idea of the war but rather because of the WAY the war appears to have been run.

When you make the debate completely cut and dry, for us or against us, for the war or pro-Saddam, support the wiretaps or support the 9/11 attacks, it turns the conversation into bloviating. There are tons of comparable posts to this one on lefty sites around the internet - and I do not support them just like I do not support this one. I'm not trying to be a dick; I'm trying to have a discussion with people of different opinions.

Teaparty said...

Dave,

Wouldn't these casualties be occuring, soldiers be dying, and terrorist tactics be just as prevelent if we had invaded one of the many countries you feel were more worthy of our attention?

If you believe the left has a problem only with the way the war has been fought, you are dangerously naive. In case you haven't noticed, they have been undercutting the event since long before there was a way to criticise.

Their lame excuse now that it is only the way it is being fought is just the latest talking point. Sorry you fell for it. You might ask one of those leftists a better way.

Chirp...chirp.

If the left were truly interested in how the war is being fought, they wouldn't be so busy passing on bogus information and ignoring the vast amount of successes in the region.

That would elevate the discussion.

Since they won't do that, I'll just have to keep taking the word of people who are actually there, like Armand and thousands of others.

You might try the same. Oh and BTW...

I'm not trying to be a dick;

Dude, you're so good you don't even have to try.

Wa-bam!

Anonymous said...

500,000 citizens of the United States of America died in World War II and I wish it had not happened, but it needed to be fought. I wish we could have found a way to end the war without bombing Hiroshima, but it was that or a million of us and probably even more of them. Think about that.

You want to know how this war should have been fought?

Start back at Afghanistan. We should have poured all of our resources into finding Bin Ladin; and when we thought he slipped into Pakistan, we should have told Pakistan to either let us in, produce Bin Ladin, or we were going to do to them what we did to the Taliban. By allowing Bin Ladin to run around and make his little tapes we're telling the world what they already knew; we can blow up buildings and governments and institutions but we cannot get small mobile terrorists. That's number one.

Second, let me go back and rephrase what I said. The reason more and more people are arguing for a pullout now has little to do with the lack of WMD or the mistakes in the line of intelligence communication, but rather the "high-level sectarian violence" that may or may not be a civil war. Many people were opposed to the war before it started; more are opposed to the way it's being waged now, opposed to seeing people's deaths as numbers in the newspaper. It is a talking point for some people, but for some of us it is more than that.

Are you saying that the death numbers are bogus? That the violence is bogus? That 2000+ US boys and girls dead is bogus?

There are of course successes. And there are mistakes and failures. It's a simple series of questions: Is it worth the hundreds of billions it is costing us now? Is it worth the deaths of our soldiers? Is it worth the deaths of the Iraqi's caught in the crossfire?

The majority of Iraq is not in chaos, but there is a large part that is. And I can't help but worry about why we're there, why we started a war. All we seem to be doing is showing the world that we can blow up the buildings and take out the government, but we cannot stop small groups of people overly willing to die for their cause.

There are tons and tons of vets who come back and speak out against the war, just as there are tons of vets who support it.

Finally, I guess I left myself open for that last jab. Oh well. Wa-bam, sweetheart.

Teaparty said...

Actually Dave, the "sectarian violence" has been dropping steadily for the last year. Recently, millions of Iraqi's took to the streets with hardly a sniff of trouble.

What's bogus is pretending that the violence is all that matters.

Yes, it is worth it. I am sure you would say the same thing had we invaded one of the countries you think are so ripe for it.

Armand said...

"There are tons of comparable posts to this one on lefty sites around the internet - and I do not support them just like I do not support this one. I'm not trying to be a dick; I'm trying to have a discussion with people of different opinions."

I wouldn't say you were "trying to be a dick," Dave... those are your words. If you're comfortable in them, then continue wearing them.

You see Dave. I make a point of challenging people's "opinions" - especially when they're based on feeling and not fact.

I also make a point of putting my money where my mouth is, which is why I'm in Baghdad promoting a way of life that so many people suppose popped into existence when a bunch of really smart guys signed a piece of paper. There's just a little more to it than that, Dave, and most people recognize that.

Whether you support the post or not is irrelevant. What I'd like to see is for the people who don't like it to:

1. Refute any of it
2. Play Monday-morning quarterback after they've put their ass on the line
3. Last 8 seconds with the "analysis" of their third-person-at-best information
4. Come up with something better than "we should have killed UBL" (which would not - not - not have stopped Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations), and
5. (and now I'm being a dick) Show me just two "comparable" posts from lefty sites on this topic. After all, there are "tons" ... like you said.

6. Ok. One more. Show me the "tons" of soldiers who come back and speak against the war (I don't know a single soldier who favors war, by the way)... and I'll show you one-hundred times as many combat-experienced soldiers who are re-enlisting at rates significantly higher than before the war started.

Bullshit Flag, firmly planted in your yard. Go ahead and salute.

Teaparty said...

Armand is way over in Iraq...yet...it feels like he is right here.

Bullshit Flag

Love it.

Unknown said...

I almost spit my orange juice out all over the monitor...

Dave barfed up:"We should have poured all of our resources into finding Bin Ladin; and when we thought he slipped into Pakistan, we should have told Pakistan to either let us in, produce Bin Ladin, or we were going to do to them what we did to the Taliban."

Pakistan is actually an ally last time I checked.

Iraq, was not. Iraq's dictator was paying Palestinian suicide bombers families $25,000 each for a successful mission of blowing up civilians in disco's and cafe's.

You have huge issues of our going to Iraq, but none of going in guns drawn and shooting up Pakistan. Nice.

I love it when you Libbies open your mouths, you do our work for us.

Anonymous said...

Jenn: Dave can't really be blamed for the Pakistan invasion.

I just finished "Real Security," the latest attempt at strategery from the left.

The idea of invading our ally, Pakistan, comes directly from the three page PowerPoint s(l)ide-show that sums up the Democrats "plan" for the future.

From their lips to Dave's keyboard? The reader can decide.

Real Security is actually pretty humorous. I'll have to remember that the next time I can't find a copy of Van Wilder.

Anonymous said...

Just a few bits:

First, my Pakistan bit, well, that's all me. I've been talking about that for quite some time and today I turn on Fox News and hear somebody talking about how the Dems want to invade Pakistan, etc. etc., and then remembered that just a night before I posted about it, and I said, well, at least I posted it before they released this "new plan". But then I realized I actually posted it AFTER it was released, so I'm going to go back through things I've blogged about and see if I can find when I first wrote it.

Spotts; Violence isn't all that matters, and if you read what I wrote, you'd see I specifically mentioned that. As far as the violence dropping, well, I am sure you can find statistics that support that, but I've been under the impression that the number of deaths has been increasing. It's a little late but I'll quintuple check that tomorrow morning. Finally, it's a weak argument to say, "well you'd just be bitching about whatever else we were doing." I'd complain about any war I thought was not going well, and I'd change course if I had supported it initially.

Armand; I have said this before, and I will say it again. I respect the fact that you're doing what you're doing, and you're putting yourself on the line for what you believe in. And you're fighting in our military which I support. But I don't support the war you're fighting. My bit about the comparable posts was the sort of "let's not debate, let's just call the other guys names" attitude of the post... I'm not sure what you thought I meant. The comparison on the left would be the "Bush said it, it must be true" post. As far as your 1 - 6 goes, 1. anything in blue/I wasn't challenging the facts of the article, 2. I've posted about what I think the relationship between the military and the private citizenry before, but summarily it is that the military is great because we have a fantastic domestic private sector and our domestic private sector is great because we have a fantastic military, and secondly I can't morally go and fight in a war I don't believe in, 3. the majority of the population agrees with me, 4. I can't think of anything better than that because I think it IS the way to do it, but unfortunately we'll never know, 5. see above, 6. I'm sure you'll win that because you're in the military and I'm not, but google DEMOCRATS, IRAQ VETERANS, HOUSE OR SENATE.

Jenn; As far as I remember, anyone who harbors terrorists is an enemy. I don't know how this whole business became about something OTHER than Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was the guy who orchestrated the killing of almost 3000 people on 9/11, not Saddam. I really cannot understand this. Maybe it's the fundamental difference that I am a New Yorker and I knew people in North Tower and I would love to see Bin Ladin caught, tried, and killed. I'm not going to put words in your mouth because I don't know you, I don't know where you are from, I don't know what you feel or whether you ever saw the Towers or have been to New York, I don't know if you've been to ground zero. I have a strong, real connection with what happened that day, and when I go to Ground Zero I feel something more than just an abstract idea of a war on terror.

Also, I wouldn't support invading Pakistan now unless we were sure Bin Ladin were hanging out there. That's an important clarification.

Teaparty said...

I'd complain about any war I thought was not going well, and I'd change course if I had supported it initially.

Soooo...what you are saying is that you support any invasion that makes sense, until the going gets rough, and then you want to pull out and leave that country to pick up the pieces.

Can anyone say Mogadishu?

If I do say so, that kind of thinking is why Islamic fundamentalists have no respect for us in the first place.

I've been under the impression that the number of deaths has been increasing

I don't really have time for your "impressions." It would be better if you were equipped with facts. The level of violence has been dropping steadily for the last year. That is a fact.

The Iraq war is going well, not perfect, by any standard. You want the perfect war. It doesn't exist. Read history.

Unknown said...

All right,tet's go with the "Dave J. school of thought".

You said, and I quote:"As far as I remember, anyone who harbors terrorists is an enemy."

So, by that train of thought, going to Iraq, because they harbored and in fact paid terrorists to complete missions is O.K. with you.

Then, Pakistan, Syria,Iran,Kuwait,Saudi Arabia.....are they next?

Sure you're a lefty?

Anonymous said...

The "cut and run" argument is overdone, spotts. I'm not saying that at the first sign we pull out. No one wants another Somalia. But after what appears to be years of mistakes and missteps that outweigh the benefits, well, then we have to consider changing course. Being firm does not mean being thick-headed.

US military fatalities have been going down; casualties are lower than before but heading back up. Here. These things are true, and 'positive' developments.

But although they are not at the highs of last summer, Iraqi casualties have been steadily increasing since the beginning of the year.

So I will modify what I've been saying in the face of the facts. Iraq is not falling into chaos; but the numbers are certainly a cause for concern. It's a matter of what happens next; do the numbers keep going up? Or do they level off? Or do they start going down? The trend says they're going up; but the numbers could decline. It's a matter of what happens next.

It's interesting, if you can call it that, to compare the later Vietnam numbers to the Iraq numbers. I think the conflicts are completely different, and the numbers seem to support that. More numbers: 25 times more Vietnamese died as compared to Americans. The Iraq war is around 17 times as many.

As far as that recent post, I was pointing out the confusion between the rhetoric of the administration and the action. Why Iraq and not those other places? Further, being liberal does not make someone a pacifist.

Teaparty said...

Of course, the Vietnam casualty list does not include the millions of people who were killed after the left in this country forced us to abandon them.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Anonymous said...

It also doesn't include the thousands of Americans that would have continued to die for a vague cause when the rational of our country eventually compelled a pullout.

Teaparty said...

That's millions Dave. Millions of people were tortured and killed because of "humanitarian" efforts to get us out of Vietnam.

Millions.

And that doesn't include the countless displaced and exiled freinds of the US in the region.

They should at least be counted, don't you think? They aren't people who might have died or could have died. They died. Period.

Teaparty said...

BTW...just so I'm clear.

I assume that Armand is referring to Spicolli Dave, AKA Buddahboy, AKA Viva la Fallujah Dave, at the beginning of the post as "Bluestate Dave..."

...and not Jock Dave, AKA Conflicted Dave, AKA Decent Dave, AKA Long-Winded Dave, who, though lacking a sense of context at times I think, provides rather entertaining and thoughtful commentary, and knows how to take the occasional shot.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, I think.

Kell said...

AKA Conflicted Dave, AKA Decent Dave, AKA Long-Winded Dave.......

Love it. And Dave, you took it so well.

Armand said...

Spott,

Yes, I was refering to "maybe it was consensual sex" (with a horse) Dave, who claims to be a card-carrying PETA member and took a screen name to honor Sean "is that a firearm you're carrying?" Penn.

Anonymous said...

Of all the adjectives my Conservative debate partners have used to describe me, "conflicted, decent and long-winded" are the most accurate and least soul-crushing I've heard.

I'll take what I can get.

Armand said...

Interesting word choice DJoch...

You'll "take what (you) can get."

This site's hosts believe we ought to earn what we get and we ought to get what we earn.

... and you're content to take?


Call me "Jack's complete lack of surprise..."