It's hard nowadays to open a newspaper or read any sort of political commentary online without running across some story on Gitmo. Considering that most reporters are self-declared hippies, most of them favor having the place shut down and its prisoners released. Think about it. How many exposes have there been now where some magazine or newspaper features some poor misfortunate who supposedly wound up as an enemy combatant 'by mistake'. Of course, the mistake in question is usually being found in a war zone with an AK-47 and shooting at US troops.

This is not to say that there probably haven't been mistakes. There are no doubt people out there who have been swept up who only dabbled instead of fully participated in terrorism. I'm sure there must be at least a couple instances of guilt by association. If your three best friends just happen to have been suicide bombers, your uncle runs the radical mosque you attend, and Al Zawahiri happens to come over once a week for potluck, it's very likely you're going to be viewed with suspicion and picked up whether you yourself have ever actually participated in their actions.

Despite all the press about the supposed innocent and the push to have more prisoners released, what we don't often see is that many of those that have been detained have ended up rejoining Al Qaeda. Think of it this way, of those who have been released, they were deemed the most likely to be innocent and the most likely to not constitute a threat. Of those, a not insignificant number have been later found to have rejoined the fight. There's one just reported in CNN today.

Pentagon: Ex-detainees returning to fight

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Kuwaiti man released from U.S. custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in 2005 blew himself up in a suicide attack in Iraq last month, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi was one of two Kuwaitis who took part in a suicide attack in Mosul on April 26, the officials said. Records show that an attack in Mosul that day targeted an Iraqi police patrol and left six people dead, including two police officers.

An announcement on a jihadist Web site earlier this month declared that al-Ajmi was one of the "heroes" who carried out the Mosul operation. A second man from Kuwait also took part in the suicide attack, the Web site said.

Pentagon officials who had been keeping track of al-Ajmi said they were aware he had left Kuwait for Syria, a launching ground for terrorists into Iraq.

A video posted on various jihadist Web sites shows a number of images of al-Ajmi, followed by text reading, "May God have mercy on you Abdullah al-Ajmi. I send you a warm greeting O you martyr, O you hero, O you, a man in a time where only few men are left."

U.S. military records of Guantanamo detainees indicate that a man with the same name and nationality was held at the Cuban prison.

Those records said al-Ajmi, 29, was picked up in Afghanistan as he tried to enter Pakistan after the 2001 U.S. invasion. He claimed to have fought for the Taliban, the records show, and said he fought in a number of battles against the Northern Alliance.

Though he was never charged with any crime, al-Ajmi was held at Guantanamo through 2005. Military documents show he later claimed that his statements about fighting for the Taliban were made after he was threatened while in U.S. custody. He asserted that he was in Afghanistan to study the Quran.

It's fucking ridiculous. Frankly, someone owes those poor bastards in Mosul an explanation for this sort of thing. Maybe we can get some of the hippies who supported this asshole's release to travel there and tell the family members why their loved ones are dead. Maybe they can tell them how the guy 'pinky swore' he really wasn't a terrorist and that's why they fought to get him released.

There should be a price to be payed when people are wrong about bullshit like this. At the very least the families should be allowed to sue the ACLU or whoever advocated for this asshole's release.

Squirrel 'spies' seized

Police in Iran are reported to have taken 14 squirrels into custody - because they are suspected of spying.

The rodents were found near the Iranian border allegedly equipped with eavesdropping devices, according to Sky News.

The reports have come from the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

When asked to confirm the story, the national police chief said: "I have heard about it, but I do not have precise information."

The IRNA said that the squirrels were kitted out by foreign intelligence services - but were captured two weeks ago by police officers.

A Foreign Office source told Sky News: "The story is nuts."

But if true, this would not be the first time animals have been used to spy.

During the Second World War, the Allied Forces used pigeons to fly vital intelligence out of occupied France.

More recently, US marines stationed in Kuwait have used chickens as a low-tech chemical detection system.

On the heels of man-eating badgers, we have spying squirrels. It's almost enough to think that the US/British may have genetically engineered or otherwise recruited a Mr Doolittle to help them in the war on terror. Either that or maybe even the animals have turned on the towelheads. It might just be a sign that God is pissed. I mean, sure, it's not exactly one of the classic signs that the Almighty is out to get you but I'm sure an invasion of man-eating badgers and spying squirrels is on the list somewhere. It's all fun and games until you get your face gnawed off and someone steals your nuts.

British blamed for Basra badgers

British forces have denied rumours that they released a plague of ferocious badgers into the Iraqi city of Basra.

Word spread among the populace that UK troops had introduced strange man-eating, bear-like beasts into the area to sow panic.

But several of the creatures, caught and killed by local farmers, have been identified by experts as honey badgers.

The rumours spread because the animals had appeared near the British base at Basra airport.

UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer said: "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.

"We have been told these are indigenous nocturnal carnivores that don't attack humans unless cornered."

The director of Basra's veterinary hospital, Mushtaq Abdul-Mahdi, has inspected several of the animals' corpses.

He told the AFP news agency: "These appeared before the fall of the regime in 1986. They are known locally as Al-Girta.

"Talk that this animal was brought by the British forces is incorrect and unscientific."

Dr Ghazi Yaqub Azzam, deputy dean of Basra's veterinary college, speculated that the badgers were being driven towards the city because of flooding in marshland north of Basra.

But the assurances did little to convince some members of the public.

One housewife, Suad Hassan, 30, claimed she had been attacked by one of the badgers as she slept.

"My husband hurried to shoot it but it was as swift as a deer," she said. "It is the size of a dog but his head is like a monkey," she told AFP.

That has got to be the quote of the day.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area."

You gotta love the British.

On a sidenote, I wonder if it would be possible to breed man-eating badgers. The whole badger invasion seems to have touched a nerve with the Iraqis. Maybe there's a cultural history of giant badger-like monsters that carry people off in the night. It might be worthwhile to spend some R&D funds to see if we can genetically engineer some sort of military assault badger. If nothing else, they can just set up some giant speakers and blast badger, badger at the populace.

I'm in the midst of watching Blackhawk Down right now. I've seen it before but it was ages ago and yesterday, I caught a chunk of it on tv. That snippet was enough to make me want to watch the whole thing again so I bittorrented the thing last night. I think I might have even written a LJ entry ages back about seeing the movie the first time.

What gets me whenever I see this movie or ones like it is how much the Rules of Engagement in this situation sucked donkey balls. The fact that you can't shoot unless directly fired upon is bullshit. I can't see how in the world soldiers can be expected to keep to rules that tie their hands like that. I don't think that we should be napalming entire villages somewhere, but if you see someone with a weapon, you should be able to shoot the fucker in the head, ecspecially in a situation where there is active hostility going on. Frankly, if a group of gunmen were using women and children as shields, I'd mow down the lot of them. It's only when you capitulate to tactics like that, that they function. In effect, you're only encouraging them to take hostages and use human shields because it's so effective. We see it now, all the time, in afghanistan or in gaza where the militants purposely hide out near civilians thinking it will cause the military to hesitate or turn aside. They only do it because they know it works, and when we can't pull the trigger, it only encourages the tactic.

I miss the good old days of war when the goals were clear. Kill the enemy, win, and go home. It seems that nowadays, everything is all fucked when we try to 'humanize' the entire concept of war. There is NOTHING civilized about armed conflict. Innocent fucking people get killed and the sooner you accept that the sooner you can crush the enemy and end the conflict. This ridiculous focus on keeping down casualties and misplaced sensitivity only ends up prolonging the conflict, in net effect causing more death. Even in the 'good' war of WWII the people in charge realized this when they firebombed Dresden or dropped the nukes on Japan. It's something that we seem to have forgotten in the meantime.

Ray gun makes targets feel as if they are on fire

MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Georgia (AP) -- The military's new weapon is a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they will catch fire.

The technology is supposed to be harmless -- a non-lethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons.

Military officials say it could save the lives of civilians and service members in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The weapon is not expected to go into production until at least 2010, but all branches of the military have expressed interest in it, officials said.

During the first media demonstration of the weapon Wednesday, airmen fired beams from a large dish antenna mounted atop a Humvee at people pretending to be rioters and acting out other scenarios U.S. troops might encounter.

The crew fired beams from more than 500 yards (455 meters) away, nearly 17 times the range of existing non-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets.

While the sudden, 130-degree Fahrenheit (54.44 Celsius) heat was not painful, it was intense enough to make participants think their clothes were about to ignite.

"This is one of the key technologies for the future," said Marine Col. Kirk Hymes, director of the non-lethal weapons program that helped develop the weapon. "Non-lethal weapons are important for the escalation of force, especially in the environments our forces are operating in."

The system uses millimeter waves, which can penetrate only 1/64th of an inch of skin, just enough to cause discomfort. By comparison, common kitchen microwaves penetrate several inches of skin.

The millimeter waves cannot go through walls, but they can penetrate most clothing, officials said. They refused to comment on whether the waves can go through glass.

Two airmen and 10 reporters volunteered to be zapped with the beams, which easily penetrated various layers of winter clothing.

Sweet. I think I made an entry about this thing around a year ago and it's nice to see that it's entered the practical test stage. I would personally love to see one of these rolled out if there's another G8 protest run amok in the US. Of course, it'd be cheaper just to spray gasoline around and then light the hippies on fire, but apparently that's frowned on nowdays. Pansies.

I was reading something about American Muslims and it got me to thinking. We're really pretty lucky in this country when it comes to our muslim population. For the most part, they've assimilated perfectly well into the culture and there's no greater proof of that than the fact that they were practically invisible prior to 9/11. It's sort of the same with the majority of asian or african ones. Most have come here for oppertunities unavaliable in their home countries and integration was a primary goal. Compare this to the problem that european countries have with their muslim populations and it's like apples and oranges.

If you look at the dynamics, it's this fact that has likely prevented further attacks, in the short term, on american soil more than anything else. It's hard to find nutjobs willing to take on such a mission among the population already present and the immigration crackdown means that it's harder to place sleeper cells for the future. Compare that to England or France, and I think it's pretty clear that they're far more likely to face eager hoards of domestic muslims willing to carry out attacks at home. The 7/7 bombings an french suburb riots seem to hold that out.

Because of this relative lack of radicalization of american muslims, maybe it's time we simply adopted a more isolationist approach to things. Sure, there are plenty of american instillations they can hit abroad, but it maybe time to just lower our profile and let europe take the hits for a while. They're going to be at ground zero of the culture clash but not as long as we're sucking up all the jihadi oxygen in the room. Remove Iraq as a dirka-bot gathering point and chances are they'll spill over Europe, bringing fire and destruction. Then we'd get a good chance to see if European appeasement has a beneficial result without as much invested.

So this started as a comment response to jirel's posting of an Iraqi's take on the war and recent events. It eventually got a bit far afield of saddam's execution so I thought I'd just revamp and put it here instead of clogging her comment link.

I think what I've learned in this whole Iraq mess is that we can't assume that everyone will be rational human beings. I'm not saying that the Iraqis are subhuman, oh wait, I think I am. This is what happens when you try to give people a chance for freedom when they're too stupid and/or barbaric to actually appreciate the oppertunity and make something of it. The US hasn't gained diddilyshit in this mess and yet we're still there all this time hoping to give the Iraqis the time to sort themselves out.

Maybe we should have just left the minute we found that there were no readyset WMDs. I still think it would have been irresponsible not to have verified that fact considering that just about every single government's intelligence agency believed that Saddam had something brewing and it was clear he was refusing to fully open up for weapons inspectors. Certainly in hindsight, that looks like the better option to have conquered and just left. It might have been idealistic to believe that we could give the Iraqis democracy and they would really free themselves from the dictatorial bonds that had held them, setting up a new society where all would have a say under the rule of law. In the end, it became what I imagine would happen if I gave a pack of mad dogs democracy except those turban-headed fuckers over there are less likely to lick themselves.

I tried really hard to buy into the whole, 'all men are equal' and that it was worthwhile to spend american blood and money to help others, assuming that they would, like rational people, want to be helped. I tried really hard to see the bright side and hope that the Iraqis would eventually come to their senses and work together. I tried but the cold light of reality simply cannot be ignored anymore. It was wrong of us to try to stay and help the Iraqis and they never deserved or earned it. We should simply pull out at this point and let them kill themselves like dogs in the streets. If they don't even value their own lives, I don't see why any of us should care, nor why american lives should be spent upon it. Frankly, I'm frustrated enough at this point that if this were Species Survivor, I'd vote the entire country of camel fuckers (except the Kurds) out of the human race. They're animals, killing each other for scraps of meat and dominance.

It's often been asked if an american life is somehow worth more than an Iraqi one, and it's something that jirel's Iraqi poster mentions at the end. The answer to me is clear that yes, an american life is worth more. I couldn't help but come to believe so after viewing the Iraqis with their death squads and other bullshit. Let them kill one another if they want and maybe one day they'll crawl out of the pit of barbarity, but no more americans should have to die to give them the oppertunity to do so.

The recap for charliecon is going to be delayed for a bit. So what should I do without a recap to work out? I thought I'd wax philosophical for a bit about one of the contraversies of the day, namely torture and the Geneva convention.

Lets take the latter first since I think it's easier. Frankly, I don't think any of the insurgents or Al Queda deserves Geneva convention protection under Article 4 which handles international conflicts.

Article 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Article 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

As far as I can figure, all of the various people we're fighting right now slip through the cracks of those definitions. They're certainly not the regular army of any country we're at war with and that militia argument is shot to hell. They can't even claim that 4.1.6 applies since the areas involved are almost certainly occupied.

As for torture in general, the problem there is not the what, but the who. People try to parse what is and what is not moral based on the procedure used. Sleep deprivation? Yes. Waterboarding? No. That's crap when we all know that in the end, it's who is being subjected to the interrogation that matters. We should not be waterboarding or electroshocking people for shits and giggles. There should be at least some intelligence that the person has valuable information and then if it will concretely save american lives, some sadistic MF should go to town on their ass. Of course, how do you determine when a person is deemed to have enough valuable intel to cross the line? There's no easy answer to that but I think that it'd be foolish to take the option off the table without knowing the circumstance. In any imminent threat where I and those I know face a good chance of being blown to bits, I'd certainly hope that someone is at work with the blowtorch and pliers.

I ran across a comment about the whole middle east conflict that sort of rang true to me and I thought I'd share.

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.

I thought about that for a bit and realized that might be the core of what I really believe about the conflict. I mean, there are plenty of reasons why I'm nominally pro-israel, but what it generally comes down to is the belief that it's the other side which will push this little war until they are forced or choose to stop. It also dosen't help things any when the very groups attacking israel also ramble off about how they'd love to blow up a couple thousand americans if they could only find the time to get away from their jew killing.

The one thing I've never been able to fully sort out in my mind is whether the whole arab-israeli conflict is a good thing or not. If Israel didn't exist, could we really expect that all of the people down there would simply toss away their guns and live in peace and harmony? Or is it more likely that without an Israel to focus on, they'd try even harder to come for our throats over here? Israel and Iraq have both become stalking horses for this clash of civilizations. It might not be nice to think about, but both of them make all of us here a wee bit safer because they suck all the terrorist oxygen out of the air. If you have busloads of Jihadi heading down to iraq to set off IEDs, they're not as likely to be spinning long and patient plans to send suicide bombers to the Mall of America.

Well, it looks like we have our first marine-iraqi insurgent love song. Well, sort of.

Everyone's buzzing about a song called Hadji Girl sung by a US marine. It was originally posted to utube but has since been pulled. Luckily however, a copy of it remains avaliable here.

As you can imagine, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has thrown a fit over the clip and the pentagon followed suit in saying it was inappropriate. It's no surprise that the usual hippie suspects are also jumping on the band wagon for this one. You're welcome to watch the video and evaluate it for yourself but I thought it was pretty hilarious.

Here are the lyrics:

I was out in the sands of Iraq
And we were under attack
And I, well I didn't know where to go
Then the first thing that I could see
Was everybody's favorite Burger King
So I threw open the door and I hit the floor

THen suddenly to my surprise
I looked up and I saw her eyes
And I knew it was love at first sight
And she said 'Dirka dirka Mohammed jihad, sherpa sherpa uhbak Allah'
Haji girl, I can't understand what you're saying
And she said 'Dirka dirka Mohammed jihad, sherpa sherpa uhbak Allah'
Haji girl, I love you anyway

Then she said she wanted me to see
Wanted me to go meet her family
But I, Well I couldn't figure out how to say no
Cuz I don't speak Arabic, so

She took me down an old dirt trail
And she pulled up to a sod shanty
She threw open the door and I hit the floor
Cuz her brother and her father shouted:
'Dirka dirka Mohammed jihad, sherpa sherpa uhbak Allah'
They pulled out their AK's so I could see

And they said
'Dirka dirka Mohammed jihad, sherpa sherpa uhbak Allah'
So I grabbed her little sister
And I put her in front of me
As the bullets began to fly
The blood sprayed from between her eyes
And then I laughed maniacally

Then I hid behind the tv
And I locked and loaded my M-16
I blew those little fuckers to eternity
And I said:
'Dirka dirka Mohammed jihad, sherpa sherpa uhbak Allah'
They shoulda known they were fuckin' with a Marine

No surprise, but it looks like the response to Zarqawi's comeuppance depends on your level of assholery. Ranking in with a stupendous level, Hamas offered up a statement that was picked up by the WP.

The radical Islamic group Hamas, which won control of the Palestinian parliament in January, deplored the U.S. airstrike that killed Zarqawi and praised him as a martyr. "With hearts full of faith, Hamas commends brother-fighter Abu Musab . . . who was martyred at the hands of the savage crusade campaign which targets the Arab homeland, starting in Iraq," the statement said.

Well, god knows I feel better now that those wankers are running the PLO. God knows what Israel is always worried about.

On a sidenote, it looks like Israel isn't taking a wait and see attitude. Hamas recently added a known terrorist to their government as the head of their security forces. It looks like that position has now come vacant again.

An Israeli airstrike Thursday killed the director general of the Hamas-run Interior Ministry and leader of a radical armed group responsible for many rocket attacks on southern Israel, as well as three of his bodyguards, as they visited a militia training camp in the Gaza Strip.

It's been a good couple of days.

Terror leader al-Zarqawi dead, Iraqi officials say

Thursday, June 8, 2006; Posted: 4:01 a.m. EDT (08:01 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted terrorist in Iraq, is dead, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Thursday.

"Today Zarqawi has been killed," al-Maliki said. The announcement was greeted by cheers.

The announcement -- made at a news conference -- did not provide details on how the infamous militant was killed. An aide to the prime minister told CNN that the prime minister confirmed that al-Zarqawi has been killed.

State TV said al-Zarqawi apparently died near the city of Baquba, a volatile area northeast of Baghdad in Diyala province, a mixed Shiite-Sunni jurisdiction.

Boom! It looks like Zarqawi was nailed by an air strike last night. The latest news as of this hour is that the pentagon has confirmed the death, though I imagine to make certain, it'll take a few days for DNA tests to come back. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. My only lament in this whole thing is that he wasn't taken alive so someone could have wired a car battery to his genitals for a while. It was certainly a much quicker and merciful death than he deserved. I hope he's off burning in hell.

I thought it was sorta nice that the US let the Iraqi government announce the death. God knows that Zarqawi's band of butchers have been mostly targeting Iraqis lately rather than coalition forces. They're the ones who end up gaining the most now that he's worm food. You almost wish that they could parade his corpse around like a puppet on strings and have it dance through the streets. I think it's time for some good old fashioned taunting and ridicule.

Toronto terror plot foiled -- Canada

Saturday, June 3, 2006; Posted: 10:49 a.m. EDT (14:49 GMT)

TORONTO, Ontario (CNN) -- Canadian police on Saturday said they have prevented a major al Qaeda-inspired terror plot to attack targets in southern Ontario.

Twelve adults and five young people were arrested, authorities said.

"This group took steps to acquire three tons of ammonium nitrate and other components necessary to create explosive devices," said Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell in a statement.

"To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."

The detained suspects are all men, Canadian residents "from a variety of backgrounds" and followers of a "dangerous ideology inspired by al Qaeda," said Luc Portelance, assistant director of operations for Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in a news conference.

The targets were all in Toronto, CNN's Jeanne Meserve reported at least one source as telling her.

:gasp: But who would ever want to hurt Canadians? (Other than me, I mean) They're like the pipping plovers of the animal world, small and helpless. Isn't it enough that they try to ingratiate themselves to everyone, crying out with their little chirp-chirps of 'Don't hurt us, we're practically neutral!'?

For quite a while now, people have chided Canada for its often lax immigration policy which allows extremist elements to pop over with little or no scrutiny. It's true that prior to 9/11, the US had hardly done a much better job in screening those entering the country but at least that has changed while canada kept dragging its feet. I think that most of the people there figured that any whackjobs would just make their way south to US targets anyway. After all, they had been sensitive and welcoming and chock full of hippie goodness. Why would the terrorists try to hurt them?

'Values' course lists dos and don'ts of war

Details of the values training program that U.S. troops in Iraq will attend -- in the wake of a number of allegations of misconduct and civilian killings -- have been obtained by CNN. The presentation called "Core Warrior Values Training" includes advice such as don't leave wounded enemies to die.

Well, this is an assinine piece of crap. Yes, certainly don't leave wounded enemies out there to die. It's better to patch them up and release them so you get the joy of hunting them down again in a few months. Think of it like one of those catch and release policies they have on fishing shows.

Lets see, what other pearls of wisdom do we have out there?

• Don't desecrate the dead.
  
• Don't cause unnecessary suffering.
  
• Don't steal things while searching private homes.
  
• Don't photograph detainees, especially when they're hooded.
  

Jeez. It's like they don't want you to have any fun at all. There should be some sort of points system where for good behavior you earn brownie points which you can then trade in order to desercrate the odd corpse. This would make everyone happy and give all the troops an incentive to be good. Besides, it'd be like a team building exercise. You never forget the first corpse you desecrate.

One of the training vignettes offers a more specific scenario, first placing the soldier in a hypothetical "cordon-and-search operation" at a private residence.

"On the way out you see items in the household that appear to be valuable, in particular, an expensive watch. No one is looking. What do you do?"

Well, umm...we're sure no one is looking, right? And it's not one of those cheap knockoffs that just look expensive but is really a piece of crap? Ummm, well.....

"Leave the watch. The law of war and the [Uniform Code of Military Justice] make it a crime to steal. Military professionals respect private property and possessions."

Damn! Okay, that was just a practice question. It didn't count.

Well, it's memorial day weekend which means there are a plethora of war movies and shows on tv. I watched Saving Private Ryan last night and today I've been following Band of Brothers. Even with vivid film-making and special effects, it's hard to grasp what the horrors of war must really be like. Not only the fear and the pain of wounds but imagine the screams of the injuried and dying, the smell of blood and spilled viscera, together painting a scene that most of us couldn't comprehend no matter what.

Not only is war a God awful mess, but it's also capricious. One man lives while another dies. Training and skill can explain a lot but after a while, all it is is incomprehensible luck. No wonder so many soldiers suffer from survivor's guilt. Like Matt Damon's character in the movie questions, did he really deserve to live when so many fell. Why him and not another?



It might be true enough, but it's always been a harsh price paid by heroes. I wish more people would realize that the freedoms we enjoy today only exist because of the sacrifice of thousands upon thousands over the course of this country's history and that it's a price that is still being payed today. The right of some people to speak out today and call the military butchers or jack-booted thugs are exactly the ones that those individuals have placed their lives on the line to project.

Anyway, one trivia fact that I find pretty disturbing. In WWII, 15,000 bullets were fired for every single man killed. By the time vietnam had rolled around, this number had increased to 50,000. Can you just imagine the sheer number of lethal death that must've been flying around. You could bury a man with 50,000 bullets.

So I'm sure that most of you have heard that recently three hostages, two canadians and a briton, were rescued from their terrorist kidnappers in Iraq by the US and British military. Here's a snippet from CNN about it:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Just three hours after a newly captured detainee told them the location of three Christian aid workers, coalition troops on Thursday rescued the men who had been held hostage since November.

British Defense Secretary John Reid said British troops "spearheaded" the rescue operation. The U.S. military confirmed that U.S. special forces took part and said the operation was continuing and coalition forces were looking to gather further intelligence from the house where the men were held.

"I am delighted that now we have a happy ending in this terrible ordeal," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in announcing the rescue.

The hostages were shown as prisoners in several videos, the most recent a silent clip dated February 28 in which Loney, Kember and Sooden appeared without Fox.

The previously unknown Swords of Righteousness Brigades claimed responsibility for the kidnapping.

Thursday's military operation "follows weeks and weeks of very careful work by our military and coalition personnel in Iraq and many civilians as well," Straw said.


These individuals were there as 'christian peace advocates' protesting the war and were seized along with a fouth member of their group who was found weeks back bound and riddled with gunshot wounds after being tortured. You'd think that the organization that sent them there would be grateful to the british and US forces who risked their own lives and put forth so much effort to locate the hostages. You might think that but you'd be dead wrong. The Christian Peacemaker Teams who had sent the men there released a statement today on their website. In it, they insinuate that the hostages were released by their captors, making no mention whatsoever about the role the americans and british forces played in rescuing them. This is not to say that the men and women of our armed forces weren't mentioned in the statement however, referred to repeatedly as illegal occupiers who the CPT blames for kidnappings in the first place. These ungrateful fuckers then conclude their bullshit statement with religious claptrap about loving their enemies and resisting evil. They might want to ration that love of theirs because when you praise the people who do you evil and condemn those that aid you, all you're going to have is a fuckload of enemies in the end.

"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also."

-Luke, Chapter 6, Verse 29

Now, maybe Jesus would forgive these wankjobs and tell us all to turn the other cheek in this situation. Frankly, my solution is far simplier. I saw we take these hippie mother fuckers and toss them back into the hands of the terrorists and see how they like torture and beheading. It was a mistake to rescue these ungrateful sacks of shit and I think we should let the next batch just die.

So as I was listening to NPR this morning (have to keep track of the hippie propoganda machine) I was informed that it's the 3rd anniversary of the Iraq war. Man, it seems like just yesterday we were rolling in there and squishing flat every Tom, Dick, and Habib in the place. Of course, like most relationships by the time the third year rolls around some of the magic has gone out of it. You can only stumble across so many suicide bombings or IEDs, airstrikes or tank shells until it's just the same ol, same ol thing.

They say that the 3rd anniversary is supposed to be leather but I think we got the list mixed up and went out of order at some point. That whole abu graib thing with the leather belts used as leashes was so 2003. Besides, it looks like we skipped right to the 11th year with steel from what I hear about Operation Swarmer and the bombs being dropped on terrorist camel jockeys.

Oh well. Here's to hoping that perhaps by the time the next anniversary rolls around we'll have managed to wipe out the terrorists, browbeat the various factions to come to some sort of rationality, and maybe get the hell out of there when all of that is done. If that fails, I still think we should consider the fallback plan of dropping a few nukes on the place. I wonder what anniversary year is a thermonuclear death cloud.