Al Qaida has deployed roadside bombs laced with toxins (Are These Freedom Fighters Cindy Sheehan?)

Where are they getting these chemical agents? Is it coming from Syria? Or is it coming from chemical agents Saddam hid somewhere, also likely in Syria? Is it all being manufactured within Iraq in terrorist strong-holds? If so, who's providing the expertise.

I wonder if Cindy Sheehan and her friends want to keep calling these vicious animals freedom fighters and to continue to see the US as the bad guy.

Why are the insurgents trying to increase the body count with tactics like this?? Thank people like Cindy Sheehan who tell the insurgents through their divisive and partisan actions that if they stack up enough US bodies, we'll all be demoralized and demand our government retreat from Iraq and leave it to the terrorists. Thanks Cindy!!

They could be common rat poisons and insecticides. Ive read that palestinian suicide bombers often pack the projectiles used in bomb vests with chemicals.

It can make a relatively minor wound into a serious wound if enough chemical enters the body with the projectile.

Michael Yon says Iraqi terrorists put rat poison in their bombs to help prevent wounds from healing. His post is here.

A fanatic who straps a bomb to his chest and walks into a market crowded with women and children, then detonates a bomb that is sometimes laced with rat poison to hamper blood coagulation, is properly called a "mass murderer." There is nothing good to say about mass murderers, nor is there anything good to say about a person who encourages these murders.

These people are the "freedom fighters" that Michael Moore loves to talk about.

Michael Yon is my favorite blogger. I heard his radio interview the other night and became an even bigger fan. I had ordered his book "Danger Close" and can't wait to start on it. This is a good quote from the Pundit Review site: Mike is the right guy at the right time and is bringing the TRUTH to an audience hungry for just that. He's everything right about the emerging new media and the more I read his posts, the more I see a need for alternative media.

The MSM seems to have forgotten that chemical weapons ARE weapons of mass destruction.

"Or is it coming from chemical agents Saddam hid somewhere, also likely in Syria?"

It seems Saddam's WMDs couldn't stay hidden forever.

Yeah, Yon has become a favorite of mine also, almost overnight. I hadn't heard of him until a few weeks ago, when Stephen Vincent was killed, and someone on the 'net recommended Yon -- saying that he's the other great writer in Iraq.

Aren't these the same barbarians who dumped bodies of people who had died of the plague over the walls (during the Crusades, was it?)on their (Western Civ) enemies? A fine bunch of heathens. Where are Amnesty International and the UN when you need them?

If crates filled with rat poison start to show up in Mosul, with postal stamps indicating they originated in Crawford Tx. USA, then we shall understand what the women who's son had to join the army to get away from her, is doing after the news cameras are turned off for the day.

Why don't they use the captured killers as point men in front of the military vehicles?

I'd say that they were "cooperating" with the troops and leave it at that.

A few million Islamic troops invade the US, killing a half million Americans in the process, the majority of them civilians They tell you it’s for you own good – that you will be much happier under Islamic government once you have experienced it. You don’t believe them, but they have far superior weaponry and your only chance of inflicting significant casualties upon them seems to be improvised roadside bombs and suicide attacks.. Would most Americans active in such a resistance hesitate to put chemicals in our explosive devices to make them more deadly?

Please note that this isn't about who’s morally the more superior being or who has the more objectively “advanced” society, it’s about what the people on both sides *believe* to be the case.

And since were the roles reversed I would expect that Americans would adopt many of the same tactics as the Iraqis, it seems to me that when considering our chances of victory in Iraq by the attrition of the insurgents/terrorists there we would do well to ask how effective the same tactics would be against us if *we* were the resistance - one thing I’m pretty sure of is that it would take a much larger force of Islamic occupation troops relative to our population than we currently have in Iraq relative to theirs and many, many years, to wear down such a resistance here – assuming, that is, that such an effort could succeed at all.

bttt

"A few million Islamic troops invade the US, killing a half million Americans in the process, the majority of them civilians They tell you it’s for you own good – that you will be much happier under Islamic government once you have experienced it. You don’t believe them, but they have far superior weaponry and your only chance of inflicting significant casualties upon them seems to be improvised roadside bombs and suicide attacks.. Would most Americans active in such a resistance hesitate to put chemicals in our explosive devices to make them more deadly?"

Your post has the distinction of being the biggest bunch of moronic, unthinking drivel I've had the displeasure of reading perhaps during my entire lifespan. You draw idiotic equivalencies that ignore basic logic and human nature. What passes for "logic" is beyond flawed, it is dangerously ignorant.

First, if you do not understand that democratic free governance is the right of and indeed within the fabric of human nature for most rational human beings, and apparently you don't, then you really do not understand anything about the world.

In the clash of ideas throughout world history, democracy has proven the most resiliant and the most popular precisely because it meets human nature and doesn't rub against it. Is your racist assumption that somehow Iraqis are less cut out for democracy just because a few murderous animals in their perverted vision of Islam are against it?? Or is it a case of you being an ideological fellow-traveller with the people who have unleashed mass death on Iraqis just yearning to live a normal life free of tyranny, oppression and murder?

Do you REALLY buy the fiction that these terrorists represent the dreams and aspirations of the Iraqi people and that they are fighting for their sovereignty?? Do you for a minute think they prefer tyranny to freedom when 60% of risked death in January to show that they reject barbarism and to elect their own govt? And let's face it, many more would have gone if not worried about death threats from the people you imply represent the will of Iraqis.

Further, you seem to imply there is some justice in the indisriminate mass murder being carried out by these jihadists, that it's all about freeing the Iraqi people to be ruled by themselves free of foreign occupation. Again you are delusional. WE ARE THE ONES FIGHTING FOR IRAQ'S SOVEREIGNTY while the animals you try to equate to some romantic force of freedom fighters are the ones trying to impose a very foreign form of extreme religious governance upon Iraqis who have a much more secular tradition. Indeed, most of what is referred to as the "insurgency" but is more aptly described as the terrorist brutish assault force are now foreigner. And Iraqis even within the shrinking native force of terrorists are now rising up to fight them as we saw recently in Ramadi when these same pigs you shill for tried to expel Shiites from the town.

Finally, if foreign troops, even Islamic ones, came here to liberate us from a man who murdered 2 million of my fellow countrymen and people in neighboring countries as Human Rights Watch says Saddam did, I daresay most of us would welcome them. That being the case, they clearly would be the more enlightened ones as opposed to those who helped perpetuate such a regime. Contrary to the illogic you nurse, most people prefer to freed from intimidation and murder, even if a foreign force has to do it. Do you think the French, Germans, Italians or Japanese resented being freed from oppression? Do the Afghans? Indeed, do the Iraqis?? You are seriously deranged if you think so.

Finally, your figure that Americans have killed 500,000 civilians in Iraq is pure, vile, progandistic b.s. and garbage! There is no evidence for such a figure nor any basis for claiming we somehow intentionally target civilians like the pigs and vermin you try to equate to freedom fighters are doing.

Go back under whatever Islamic, terrorist apologist rock you crawled out from under. No one is interested in the Al Jazeera/Al Qaeda line you're peddling.

There is a fine line between what is described in this article, and WMDs.

You know, that is a very good idea. Put the "insurgents" in American uniforms and in the lead vehicle of all convoys. Nobody needs to know this. It would save American lives and get rid of the vermin at the same time.

Your post has the distinction of being the biggest bunch of moronic, unthinking drivel I've had the displeasure of reading perhaps during my entire lifespan

IMO, you really need to get out more.

You draw idiotic equivalencies that ignore basic logic and human nature What passes for "logic" is beyond flawed, it is dangerously ignorant. First, if you do not understand that democratic free governance is the right of and indeed within the fabric of human nature for most rational human beings, and apparently you don't then you really do not understand anything about the world… Is your racist assumption that somehow Iraqis are less cut out for democracy just because a few murderous animals in their perverted vision of Islam are against it?? Or is it a case of you being an ideological fellow-traveler with the people who have unleashed mass death on Iraqis just yearning to live a normal life free of tyranny, oppression and murder?

I’d say it’s a case of having observed, for example, the career of ouhollah Mousavi Khomeini and the national refernudum in which the freedon loving people of Iran installed a cadre of elderly despotic theocratic thugs at the pinnacle of government, the fact that decade later similar leadership were prevented from a “democratic” take-over of Algeria by the “fabric of human nature” presenting itself in the form of a military coup, and the fact that a decade after that a tryly democratic election reflecting the will of the majority of “rational human beings” in Egypt would likely bring the Islamic Brotherhood to power.

Do you REALLY buy the fiction that these terrorists represent the dreams and aspirations of the Iraqi people and that they are fighting for their sovereignty?? Do you for a minute think they prefer tyranny to freedom when 60% of risked death in January to show that they reject barbarism and to elect their own govt?

The majority of the Iraqi Moslems who voted in the last election were Shities (the Sunnis largely boycotted the vote), and they elected representatives most of whom who are trying hard to impose a fundamentalist Islamic government upon themselves along the model of the “Islamic Democracy” that brought the current reactionaries to power in Tehran: “One man, one vote, one time!” (And in fact they have already set up a de-facto “Islamic Republic” in much of the area under their control). It will eventually be the case that as in Iran a majority of the same voters will regret their decision, but for the next decade or two the overwhelming likelihood is that the primary result of our occupation of Iraq will be to have brought a Fundamentalist Islamic regime into being in these areas, perhaps in eventual formal confederation with Iran. Similarly I see no reason to suppose that any but a minority of educated and “Westernized” Sunni elite have any great love for anything much resembling western democracy –the most we can hope for along those lines is that the Kurdish majority areas manage to hang on to autonomy, and institute some sort of hybrid government more respectful of Western norms that the rest of Iraq.

Further, you seem to imply there is some justice in the indiscriminate mass murder being carried out by these jihads, that it's all about freeing the Iraqi people to be ruled by them free of foreign occupation. Again you are delusional…

No, I don’t believe that indiscriminate mass murder amounts to “justice” of any sort, the point is that lot of the participants in this tragedy believe it does, and the fact that you and I are convinced we know better is not going to change their opinion, which is the basis of their willingness to undertake such actions. No doubt if we had been invaded by a militarily superior Islamic power in order to put our house in order according to their lights, they would be lecturing us on the immortality and illegitimacy of many of our methods with equal “justice” - and this would not change our opinions, either.

WE ARE THE ONES FIGHTING FOR IRAQ'S SOVEREIGNTY while the animals you try to equate to some romantic force of freedom fighters are the ones trying to impose a very foreign form of extreme religious governance upon Iraqis who have a much more secular tradition…”

Just which part of my opinion that Islamic fundamentalists are benighted medievalists do you find “romantic”? In my opinion what’s “romantic”, or more precisely naive, is the conviction that a majority of Iraqis – Shiite or Sunni – are part of some sort of Iraqi secular tradition – which is exactly the belief that got us into this mess in the first place.

Indeed, most of what is referred to as the "insurgency" but is more aptly described as the terrorist brutish assault force are now foreigner.

And other than wishing this was so, you know this how? The military’s estimates place the number of foreign fighters in the low thousands, and the number of indigenous “insurgents” – who range from Sunni thugs to Shiite religious fanatics – the low tens of thousands.

Finally, if foreign troops, even Islamic ones, came here to liberate us from a man who murdered 2 million of my fellow countrymen and people in neighboring countries as Human Rights Watch says Saddam did, I daresay most of us would welcome them…. That being the case, they clearly would be the more enlightened ones as opposed to those who helped perpetuate such a regime. Contrary to the illogic you nurse, most people prefer to freed from intimidation and murder, even if a foreign force has to do it. Do you think the French, Germans, Italians or Japanese resented being freed from oppression? Do the Afghans? Indeed, do the Iraqis?? You are seriously deranged if you think so….

Oh yeah, I can see it now:

UPI (Dallas) Thousands of Freepers Line Streets to Welcome Advance Units of US Peacekeeping Force,.

(Photo) Pakistani troops are showered with flowers as the citizens of Dallas line up at police stations to turn in their personal weapons to the interim government…”

Um hum… and I’m delusional?

Go back under whatever Islamic, terrorist apologist rock you crawled out from under. No one is interested in the Al Jazeera/Al Qaeda line you're peddling… yadda yadda yadda.

My rock is located in Chicago, my wife goes to work every day in the Sears Tower, and I don’t believe I have many illusions about Al Qaeda’s plans for her if we give then the chance.

IMO the elimination of Al Qaeda and the discovery and incapacitation of its successors ought to be at the top of our to-do list.

That’s why I try to be realistic about our options and their consequences.

(Are These Freedom Fighters Cindy Sheehan?)

Why of course. They're only fighting to get the big bad USA out of their beautiful free country, don't cha know? (sarc)

The majority of the Iraqi Moslems who voted in the last election were Shities (the Sunnis largely boycotted the vote), and they elected representatives most of whom who are trying hard to impose a fundamentalist Islamic government upon themselves along the model of the “Islamic Democracy” that brought the current reactionaries to power in Tehran: “One man, one vote, one time!” (And in fact they have already set up a de-facto “Islamic Republic” in much of the area under their control). It will eventually be the case that as in Iran a majority of the same voters will regret their decision, but for the next decade or two the overwhelming likelihood is that the primary result of our occupation of Iraq will be to have brought a Fundamentalist Islamic regime into being in these areas, perhaps in eventual formal confederation with Iran. Similarly I see no reason to suppose that any but a minority of educated and “Westernized” Sunni elite have any great love for anything much resembling western democracy –the most we can hope for along those lines is that the Kurdish majority areas manage to hang on to autonomy, and institute some sort of hybrid government more respectful of Western norms that the rest of Iraq.

What in anything that occured in Iran makes you think those people had anything like freedom of choice in a multiparty democracy? And do you think today the people of Iran if given a shot at free and fair voting would elect these Mullahs? I don't. The most recent elect was an absolute exercise in fraud. That fact that the Mullahs have to resort to such fraud indicates they know Iran's people would never choose their form of governance if given a chance.

Also, if Egypt were ready to elect the Muslim Brotherhood as you claim, Egypt would be a lot more violent than it is. You error is assuming terrorism and extremism represent the aspiration of most Arab people. The fact is the Muslim Brotherhood has largely been silenced in Egypt and it's not because everyone supports them. It's because they were a minority fringe to begin with.

Finally, what you discuss in terms of Iraq is pure speculation. Yes Iraq will have elements of Islamic law, but that does not mean they will turn into another Iran. Clearly they are on the path to creating constitutional governance. To ignore that is pure denial on your part. I might remind you that Turkey also is an Islamic country, but it has a strong democratic tradition in the last couple decades.

Also, while yes the majority of voters were Shiites in the most recent elections, leading Sunnis are now admitting it was a mistake to boycott the elections and are calling for Sunni participation in the October referendum. To interpret low Sunni turnout to mean they prefer tyranny to free governance is a stretch at best. For one thing the Sunni areas were those where the most intimidation and violence occured. Without that, many more Sunnis would undoubtely have voted. But Sunnis have indicated they will not allow themselves to be intimidated this time. Also, the Sunni turnout in January was better than expected.

Bottom line, you are writing off Iraq WAY TOO SOON and declaring victory for the Islamists much too prematurely. The process is barely getting underway. I think it's short-sighted to just claim all is lost before all the results are in.

Finally, yes if we were ruled by a murder like Saddam and democratic forces came to liberate us from his murder REGARDLESS of whether they were Christian, Buddhist or Muslim I think most of us would welcome being freed from the dark cloud of oppression.

P.S. I get out plenty thanks. The nonsense of your prior post would have been evident to even the most swinging of playboys.

what in anything that occurred in Iran makes you think those people had anything like freedom of choice in a multiparty democracy? And do you think today the people of Iran if given a shot at free and fair voting would elect these Mullahs

Today, probably not – but at the time of the revolution, their support was around 85% (which incidentally appears to be roughly the level of support that those proposing the creation of an Islamic State in the Shiite controlled areas of Iraq enjoy toady).

Presumably a few decades of life under such a regimen will (as in Iran) roughly reverse that proportion, but it appears that this is lesson which is best learned by experience - as is evidenced by recent events in Algeria. The current popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (where it’s larger than all the alternative movement – secular and religious –combined,) the gradual erosion of support for secular parties the West Bank and Gaza, ECT.

clearly they are on the path to creating constitutional governance. To ignore that is pure denial on your part

Clearly these is some possibility that some kind of compromise providing for a high degree of regional autonomy and national distribution of oil revenues is achievable, but at least as of this point the Iraqis appear no closer to durable resolution of the really tough constitution questions than 6 months ago - that’s why we are seeing calls for a new round of elections.

I might remind you that Turkey also is an Islamic country, but it has a strong democratic tradition in the last couple decades.

Yes. And how did it achive that position? Not by democratic elections, but via decades of ruthlessly repressive autocratic government bent on the forced “westernization” of Turkish society – the government of Turkey during that period was at lot closer to that of Iraq under Saddam than “democracy” as envisioned for the last decade in either Washington or Tehran. And no, this isn’t an endorsement of such directorships; it’s merely a statement of fact as regards value of Turkey as a model of anything at all elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Also, while yes the majority of voters were Shiites in the most recent elections, leading Sunnis are now admitting it was a mistake to boycott the elections… but Sunnis have indicated they will not allow themselves to be intimidated this time. Also, the Sunni turnout in January was better than expected.

And this will improve things how? If anything, it will likely make any constutional arrangements arrived at today DOA when submitted to an electorate with greater Sunni representation.

Bottom line, you are writing off Iraq WAY TOO SOON and declaring victory for the Islamists much too prematurely. The process is barely getting underway. I think it's short-sighted to just claim all is lost before all the results are in.

Well, this has been my point in postings here since the start of the occupation (and before): to establish public order in Iraq likely requires several hundred thousand more troops on the ground, a realistic Federal budget to pay for the effort, and an end to divisive domestic political infighting to build the consensus required to support the effort for a decade or more – for example Conservatives can fight a pitched battle to move the country to the right domestically against the wishes of at least 40% of the voters, or they can move left and join a “moderate” coalition (roughly analogous to the arrangements between the Republicans and Democrats during the height of the Cold War) to build domestic support for a sustained efforts in Iraq, but practical politics prevent doing both at the same time – a choice has to be made, or the voters will make it for the politicians.

P.S. I get out plenty thanks. The nonsense of your prior post would have been evident to even the most swinging of playboys.

I wasn’t referring to you love life, but rather to your observation that:

Your post has the distinction of being the biggest bunch of moronic, unthinking drivel I've had the displeasure of reading perhaps during my entire lifespan. You draw idiotic equivalencies that ignore basic logic and human nature. What passes for "logic" is beyond flawed, it is dangerously ignorant.

If my efforts are actually the worst you have encountered in your lifetime I can only suppose that you are residing in some sort of sheltered care facility.

But I don’t think that’s really the case, I think you just like to bracket the thoughtful portions of your posts with paragraphs of polemical boilerplate, and insert the occasional diatribe when uncertain of correct punctuation.

And really, there’s nothing wrong with that while one is waiting to develop a little bit of gravitas and style; as a young man I was a bit of a harangue-orangutan myself!

So here’s a tip from an old pro: you can save yourself a lot of time by just porting such content over from:

http://www.insultmonger.com/generators/index.htm

Best,

MDT