Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
 Subscribe in a reader

The Dogs of War

| 32 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

While the media continues to press for American self-flagellation over supposed flushing of Qur'ans in Gitmo (which by the way has no basis in fact), our enemies in Iraq continue to act in the most depraved manner. We already know insurgent snipers intentionally target doctors and journalists. Their training materials explicitly state this. Their selection of suicide bombers is disgusting as well. Not satisfied with blackmailing innocents to execute suicide attacks or using young adults with Down's syndrome as unsuspecting walking bombs [a crime so foul there is no Hell with an appropriate punishment], al Qaeda has ventured to the animal kingdom for new martyrs in the cause of jihad.

Insurgents in Iraq attached explosives to a dog and tried to blow up a military convoy near the northern oil centre of Kirkuk.

The canine bomb went off but the only casualty was the unfortunate animal, said police. The militants wrapped an explosive belt around the dog and detonated it as the convoy passed through Dakuk, 25 miles south of Kirkuk, said the town's police chief, Col Mohammed Barzaji.

"The dog was torn apart by the explosion which caused neither injury among the soldiers nor any damage."
Col Barzaji said the bomb had been detonated outside a Shia mosque. "Eight suspects have been detained." This was not the first time that animals have been used in insurgent attacks. In 2003, donkey carts were used to conceal makeshift multiple rocket launchers in a flurry of attacks in Baghdad. Animal carcasses and human corpses have been used to conceal explosives.

This is a relatively new tactic for the insurgency. Previously they have employed IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), VBIEDS (Vehicle Borne IEDs), DSBIED (Down's Syndrome Borne IEDs) and DBIEDs (Donkey Borne IEDs aka Shock and Heehaw), but this the first case of CBIEDs (Canine Borne IEDS) reported. While the media reports there is a glut of volunteers wiling to immolate themselves, the reliance on blackmail, the mentally handicapped and four legged creatures as martyrs shows there may be a serious problem with the devotion to the cause amongst the recruits.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), who has objected to the use of animals by the American military for sniffing out explosives and serving as chemical warning systems, has no comment on the insurgency's use of CBIEDs or DBIEDs. Is their silence to be considered approval? Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

2 TrackBacks

Tracked: May 27, 2005 4:38 PM
Dog Bomb from Mark in Mexico
Excerpt: Dog Bomb Would you strap an explosive device on ol' Buford and send him out to the road, then trigger the device and blow ol' Buford to smithereens? Well, they would.
Tracked: July 25, 2005 5:36 AM
Hearts, Minds and Suicide Bombs from The Fourth Rail
Excerpt: al Qaeda continues to dispense terror to the people of the Muslim world using the tool they have mastered: the suicide bomb. A day following the horrific attack on Iraqi children in Baghdad that killed 24 children and wounded and...


It's times like these that your mind wanders back to Michael Moore praising these monsters as "Minutemen."

The Chicago Tribune has the only update on Operation New Market that I could find this morning.

Text to display

We journalists have no obligation to present any particular reality to the public. We are reality. We decide what the public can learn about the world around them. That's the beauty of mass media. Even without trying to conspire, a type of groupthink naturally evolves, a social grouping of like minds, that allows a few strongwilled persons to dictate what the public is allowed to think. We hate you bloggers.

WAIT A MINUTE...I thought Muslims weren't supposed to have contact with dogs, as they are (according to the Koran) animals of the Devil or somesuch thing.


Blowing up dogs, thats just sick. There is no question who the bad guys are and how much more horrifying and dispicable they are. But that does not give us carte blanche to do anything we want when combatting them. Its an ancient warning, we must be cautious in war to not become too like the enemy we are fighting, which is the natural tendency. Its axiomatic.

I think Friedman hits the nail on the head with this oped:

We need to clean up our act with these detainees. Not just because (or even if) it is morally right, but because it is pragmatically necessary. We are at a point of diminishing returns with these interrogations. Its seems highly unlikely that the information prisoners captured months and years ago may be providing is more valuable than the pounding the US reputation for human rights is taking in the world. You cant argue that the Bush doctrine of inspiring liberty is being advanced when reports like these are becoming such huge scandals. Fair or not, that is reality. Guantanimo is a big black eye. Tear it down and do what you have to do vis-a-vis prisoners quietly and not all in one place. Its like Abu Ghraib, say what you want it was a bad idea to take over Saddams prisons and palaces and put them back to use. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Symbols matter and we have done a lousy job in that respect, and worse havent learned and adapted very well.


Exactly. Take what probably amounts to less than 10% of the Guantanamo detainees that can either provide worthwhile intel or might organize future attacks to various lower key locales. If it hasn't been done already (and it's a true shame if it hasn't) get Bagram and the various other detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere under control.

Instead of whining about the press reporting abuses, do something about the abuses. And do it openly.

And it's time for a little accountability for the military involved. And not just non coms.

Davebo is just making stuff up: "probably . . . less than 10%"? As of a month ago, 167 Guantanamo detainees had been released, and some of them have already killed again. If the least dangerous 20% or 25%, already released, include some who have gone straight back to terrorism, how likely is it that more than 90% of those still in custody are harmless, as Davebo thinks?

"As of a month ago, 167 Guantanamo detainees had been released, and some of them have already killed again. "

How many? By davebos estimate up to 17 of the released could be repeat offenders, I recall hearing that many cases. The real question is how much trouble have the Guantanimo stories cost us, and Im not just talking about some idiot that decides its a good idea to chuck a grenade at a humvee. Much worse is the hundreds or thousands of potential allies in Syria or Jordan or Iraq that are intrigued by the progress in Lebanon and Iraq and are thinking hard about the Western system. Then they see how Americans treat their prisoners and it doesnt jive with what we are trying to sell them. That is a problem, and one that we created for ourselves. There are ways to do things quietly for the worst offenders and seem magnanimous with the little guys. Give them to Karzai to hold onto and keep our hands clean. We need a cost benefit analysis here, and it seems to me that for every minor league terrorist that might manage to get back on the street we have to weigh that against the advent of huge anti-American protests and probably increasing violence spurred by this particular story. Will they find some other reason to hate us? Of course, but remember this is a battle of ideas, and its just stupid to give away rationales for free. More Muslims will hate us for being hypocrites on human rights than for having Britney Spears or whatever. Take away the justifications when its possible and in line with our values.

In the war against violent islamic religious fanatics, one must take the long view. After all, this conflict has been transpiring for more than a millenium, in fits and starts. There are no angels on either side. Nonetheless everyone with sense can see which side is cutting off prisoners' heads and which side is prosecuting people for putting panties on the heads.
Some of you guys are going into hysterics. Medication can be helpful in those cases.

"Some of you guys are going into hysterics. Medication can be helpful in those cases."

Who's going into hysterics? Why, by suggesting we have a debate on whether our current policy is doing more harm than good? Thats a wacky idea? I'll tell you who is irrational, its those who immediately and kneejerk reject any discussion of our current problem. Especially those who say that even by talking about it we are hurting the war effort. Thats plain stupid emotionalism. Let me make this plain, it doesnt matter if we are 'in the right'. Perception is what matters. Its utterly immaterial that our enemy is thousands of times worse. No-one (of any consequence) is comparing us to them. They are looking at us to see if we are worthy of being held up as a standard, not to see if we are betting than the worst dregs of the universe. Its simply not nearly good enough to be better than terrorist scum, not even close. We have to be the best we can, we have to uphold our values, and we have to practice what we preach. Thats how we win the battle of ideas. If you guys want to feel superior and lose, do it on your own time. I'd rather be unfairly held to a higher standard, try to live up to it, and win.

well,we can now count the days till the islamists defeat.when PETA gets wind of this inhumane act it'll be the end of them. allah help the poor bastards they don't stand a chance.

Mark, you have failed to actually describe a policy that differs from the present one. In fact, you have above advocated doing exactly what has been most criticized about current policies - rendition.

A somewhat gloomy update of Operation New Market from the AP.

In Haditha, second time around

proves frustrating for Marines


Where did he describe rendition? Breaking up those that can't be released into smaller lower profile groups in existing facilities doesn't mean we have to ship them to other governments.

And I think it's safe to say that whatever legal advantages were seen initially in keeping them "on US soil" but out of the US are out the window at this point.

Here's an AFP article that provides the most detail that I have seen about the recent downing of the helicopter in Bahriz. Ground troops ran into trouble and called for support. When the helicopters arrived to secure the area, one turned on a spotlight and was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.

The article also states that another lieutenant to Zarqawi was captured on Thursday during an operation carried out around Raifa, 280 kilometres (175 miles) south of Baghdad.

Rebels down US chopper as Baghdad shield goes up

"Mark, you have failed to actually describe a policy that differs from the present one"

Thats strange, i havent seen the cages in Guantanimo torn down. One would think it would be a big story. This entire thing would never have been the issue it is if we hadnt felt the beaurocratic imperative to cage all these jerks in one high profile camp in the first place. And for any that we have no more use for, there is nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral about extraditing them to their home counties, or other nations they have committed crimes in. IE Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

At 5:02 PM, Mark wrote " Give them to Karzai to hold onto and keep our hands clean." That's rendition.

If you are claiming that Guantanamo's very existance is bad, you are being silly. Whatever camp existed would attract that same exaggerated rhetoric that Guantanamo has. As I said, you are not offering anything substantive.

"At 5:02 PM, Mark wrote " Give them to Karzai to hold onto and keep our hands clean." That's rendition."

Deporting international criminals the nations they violated is rendition, yes. We deport criminals all the time. I dont see the problem.

"If you are claiming that Guantanamo's very existance is bad, you are being silly. Whatever camp existed would attract that same exaggerated rhetoric that Guantanamo has."

You are failing to listen to me. Had they been spread out across the globe in very small groups (or individually) there would be no target for contraversy to gel around.

"As I said, you are not offering anything substantive."

As I said, you are simply not listening.

Mark Buehner should have read my comment (#7) more carefully before writing comment #8: he seems to have skipped over the words "least dangerous". The 167 or so released so far are not a random cross-section of prisoners: we are not letting them go alphabetically or by height, but releasing those deemed least likely to kill again. The fact that even the 20-25% released so far include some eager recidivists suggests that the ones left are mostly hard-core. The idea that 90% of the ones left are harmless is absurd, even if 90% of those released are.

I suppose putting them on trial, finding them guilty of shooting at American shoulders and waging war against us and then imposing the death penalty to be done with it is out of the question?

I suppose putting them on trial, finding them guilty of shooting at American soldiers and waging war against us and then imposing the death penalty to be done with it is out of the question?

Very well dr w, you have a point. On the other hand the option is not to keep them at Guantanimo or to release them all. I think we should be willing to release some, as a gesture of goodwill and to gain some political breathing space. Will a handful return to terrorism? Yes, almost certainly. But again, this is a choice of evils. Keeping them as they are is hurting American interests. Unfair but true. Releasing a few, returning many to their countries of origin with an implicit agreement not to let them walk, and disapearing the most dangerous to bases spread around the world would gain us a huge moral victory. It wouldnt shut up the usual suspects, but it will encourage the people we need. The Brits, Aussies, Poles, Italians etc that support us but are heartsick with what is going on, and more importantly the fence sitters in the Middle East that are tempted to buy into liberty and democracy but disgusted by American hypocracy. Thats who we are talking to. Keeping Guantanimo just to feel some stupid sense of moral righteousness is pride and arrogance. Guantanimo gives us no advantages and a headful of headaches. Turn the place into an opertunity, swallow our pride, cross our fingers, say out of respect for our allies we are disbanding the place, and do what we absolutely have to do out of the limelight as it should have been done all along. The bottom line, would you rather be right, stick to your guns, and lose, or swallow your pride, eat a little undeserved crow, and win?

One thing I think is falsely believed here is that the population at Gitmo is a closed system, i.e. that there are no new 'visitors' introduced into the fishbowl. Although I can't prove it, consider that there's fresh fish arriving daily. The intelligence gathered is not old, dated, invalid, etc. In fact, the product coming from Gitmo could be considered a inexhaustable bonanza.
There's no Lindie @ "white-trash" England shooting pics at 2am with these guys. This place is run by professionals.
As for high-profile, indeed Gitmo is. But, really smart people build their lightning rods higher then surrounding structures for obvious reasons, at least obvious to those that know anything about lightning.

I do not believe that Guantanamo is hurting American interests or involves any hypocrisy at all on our part. What is hurting American interests is the large number of people in the world (some of them American) who grossly exaggerate the problems of Guantanamo, display the most blatant hypocrisy about it themselves, publish the obvious lies of terrorists as if they were true, and in many cases simply lie themselves. If Guantanamo were shut down, these people would quickly find something else to lie about. Here are some guesses for the likely first lie if MB's plan were taken up: that the new scattered bases are designed to make it easier for the U.S. to kill prisoners without anyone knowing, or to harvest their organs for involuntary transplants before they're even dead, or to drain their blood and ship it in tanker trucks to the matzoh factories. It seems to me that what the U.S. needs is vigorous rhetorical counterattack on the liars and the fools who repeat their lies. Doing what they urge would only encourage them to lie more.

Here's a blog posting from an officer in an Army tank battalion at FOB Gabe just outside Buhriz where the Kiowa helicopter was shot down two days ago. He provides a lot of detail about the area, but doesn't believe it was a surface to air missile that brought it down.

Kiowa down

"I do not believe that Guantanamo is hurting American interests or involves any hypocrisy at all on our part."

Demonstrably false. As the demonstrations in Afghanistan, Lebannon, and Pakistan have shown. It wont do to underestimate how much Guantanimo upsets the coalition populations either. Ignoring the Brits and Australians is a poor way to pay back their loyalty.

"What is hurting American interests is the large number of people in the world (some of them American) who grossly exaggerate the problems of Guantanamo, display the most blatant hypocrisy about it themselves, publish the obvious lies of terrorists as if they were true, and in many cases simply lie themselves."

Ok, we need to admit there are two seperate groups you are talking about: the anti-americans actively trying to embarass and defeat the US, and others who are simply skeptical of US assurances and concerned with human rights violations. Look, at this point it is just wanton ignorance to claim there have not been human rights violations. Over 100 detainees have died, admitted to by the Pentagon. How am I supposed to ignore that? Its a fact. Clearly there is not enough transparency, or else we are not doing a very good job of covering things up. It has to be one or the other, because, again, pragmatically it simply wont do for the world to see us doing these things. It is hurting us, not just with the moonbats, but with the moderates. We need them.

"If Guantanamo were shut down, these people would quickly find something else to lie about. "

You are absolutely right. But here is the difference, those claims would be implausible. Right now they are all too plausible, and the reasonable people we are trying to win over have excellent reason to believe them. We need to be scrupulous, so that our enemies and the moonbats are seen by the moderates to be nutty as they are.

The Soviets experimented with anti-tank dogs (with mines strapped to their backs) in World War II, trained by the famous Pavlov Institute.

According to the legend, the experiment was abandoned because the dogs insisted on attacking Russian tanks.

Mark, the moral inverts wringing their hands about evil creatures was against us before against us now and would still be agaist us if we handed our enemies each a gold brick and a chartered plane

They are on the side of evil attempting to help evil.

They are the John Kerry type of ingrate that gave praise to butchers guilty of crimes against humanity while pointing the accusing finger at america.

Why not offer them your daughter as a gesture of goodwill ?

What, dont trust them ? dont endanger ours by proxy. you dont make deals with evil.

Retreat emboldens evil, always did. always will.

Like the bloodstained left, Islam has been at war since Mohammed, a religion spread by the sword and the flame.

They would rape your kid and make you watch, then saw off your head for the camera. then sqat on your headless remains in confort and eat a sandwich.

If Koran flushing, fake blood, and leading them around naked on a leash gets us info to save lives without leaving a scratch on them, then gee, we need to be doing more of that.

And those attempting to use that infor for atcantage against the United States and get people killed are the enemy, aiding the killers, makeing them guilty along with the killers, and need to share a cell with the killers untill the war is over.

What MB calls "demonstrably false" in #26 is in fact true. What is riling up various enemies and supposed allies is not anything that has actually happened at Guantanamo, but things that have either not happened at all or have happened in entirely different ways from what they think.

The fact that over 100 have died in custody proves nothing except the ignorance or dishonesty of the people tossing the number around. We have captured thousands of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of them are fairly old, most of them were ill-nourished and unhealthy when captured (I've read that most had malaria and head lice), and many were wounded before or during capture. They have been in custody for up to 3 1/2 years. I would expect the number of prisoners who have died of old age or untreatable disease or succumbed to their wounds in that period of time would be several dozen at the least, quite likely over 100. There have reportedly been a lot of suicides and suicide attempts at Guantanamo. Are these the fault of the U.S.? Hardly. I'm pretty sure that homicidal maniacs are disproportionally likely to be suicidal maniacs, particularly when their opportunities for homicide have been taken away. Finally, I don't doubt that some have been killed by U.S. guards, but even that is not necessarily a crime. After all, a prisoner in any prison anywhere who (e.g.) tries to kill a guard or take gun is likely to get killed, and that is not murder but justifiable homicide. I think you grossly underestimate the thuggishness of the Guantanamo prisoners. In fact, I know you do, since earlier in this thread you were claiming that 90% of them could be released without risk. So how many prisoners have died over and above the categories mentioned? I don't know, which means either (a) that the U.S. government is doing a terrible job defending itself, or (b) that the U.S. government has released the numbers broken down by category, but the liars and fools of the media prefer to stick with the hugely misleading "over 100" figure, since it makes Bush look worse and will help the U.S. lose the war on al Qaeda and its allies.

Mark, you are confusing your opinions with facts. It is a fundamental mistake.

in London the jihadis aren't using animals as suicide bombers, but they are burning crosses

It seems that MB is offering symbolic gestures that would cynically be appraised as such almost immediately by the intended audience. I would prefer improving discipline and more transparancy as to the actual number and nature of the deaths. It seems a stronger case could be made for destroying abu ghraib, but that bit of symbolism wouldn't change Iraqi security concerns, which is the bigger problem.

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display": (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.

Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en