Posts
This lady knew how to PAAARR-TTTAAAYY! 
Yes..this is about a week late, but I couldn't resist putting out the call for a blogger pajama party. If you know what's good for you, you will go over to Harvey's at Bad Example and post a link to a picture of you in your blogjammers for the blogger fashionn show. I found him via my friend Tammi, a fellow road warrior.
GO FORTH AND BLOG!
Now...back to our regularly scheduled programming...
tracking
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Welcome To The Pajama Party! If You Don't Blog In Your Pajamas...
You Don't Know What You're Missing!
Before I get my blog on, I get my cheetah pjs on. It's the kat in me! What kind of jammies do you wear when you are blogging? Advice for naked bloggers: men, if you have one of those keyboard holders that roll out from under your desk top, BEWARE! Male dysfunction due to keyboard injuries are a serious problem in the blogosphere (BLOGOSHA report, Sept 2004).
Monday, September 20, 2004
Beheadings: American and Kurdish Prisoners Found Beheaded
Eugene Armstrong, married, father of 1, was beheaded in Iraq today by the Tawhid (unity) and Jihad (holy war). The group led by Zarqawi. I refuse to put the word "abu" in front of his name. Abu is the arabic word for "father of" and is a sign of respect. There is none for this man.
There are two other prisoners being held now. Both will most likely be beheaded as we will not negotiate. To their families, please God give them comfort. I don't know what else to ask. They are surely dead men.
They say that "three kurdish men" were beheaded as well. They do not give us names. If I had their names, they would go here as well. A reminder that these bastards know no bounds. Have no mercy and should receive none.
For some reason, I find it very hard to believe that, even in this hostile area, we have no inkling where a hostile force would be hiding and beheading hostages. The simple fact that no one turns them in begins to speak very loudly to me and I hate to think what it is saying.
If there is a God, may he have mercy on these victims souls and their families and none for their torturers. I have a picture of hell for these bastards. It involves them being the victim of their favorite past time, over and over again like Promytheus having his liver eaten every day, only to grow back and have it eaten again.
I curse them.
Update
I do not want to neglect our Kurdish friends. If you have not done so before, I highly recommend visiting the Kurdistan Bloggers Union. They always have interesting information about Kurdistan and things going on there. We should remember that they are the calm and progressive part of Iraq.
They post about the three kurdish students that were beheaded just the day before and some other information about additional about the make up of the Islamic caliphate (in brief) and the few times (more often not) that Muslims advanced.
And here, more on the three kurdish youth beheaded by the Islamists, may God have mercy on the victims and none for their torturers.
I curse them for the dogs they are.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Divide and Conquer - (part IV)Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda
The other problem here is of course the type of information available in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. To be sure, there are varying degrees of censorship in these countries. But, by far, most of these countries have state run television. Satellite TV is regulated and only certain satellite connections are allowed. I imagine that there are some intrepid techie types in the country who are able to mess with their satellite settings and receive other channels, but this is relatively limited. Books are strictly vetted. Certainly none that criticize the government, Islam, Palestinians, the oil industry, etc are allowed in the country through official channels and certainly not translated into Arabic. These books are usually smuggled in along with American and European music, movies, etc.
Go to the inner sanctum to read more on this subject...
News in most of these countries comes from limited sources. Most reading this blog should be familiar with Al Jazeerah. As much as we might decry their "bias" we should read them regularly to understand what is reported in these countries and how. For instance, today's headlines include things like France backs Annan's "illegal war" view
(...)"You well know that what explains our country's disagreement with the way the war was carried out was that it clearly did not at that time abide by international law, and there was not a clear request from the United States to start that action," French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said on Friday(...)
(...)"We have always considered that international law constitutes the framework for any action, notably against terrorism or for stability in the world," he said.
(...)"I've indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal," Annan said.
Washington hit back on Thursday by claiming it considered that a previous UN resolution passed four months prior to the conflict gave it sufficient authority to wage its action because Iraq had refused to surrender suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
After 19 months of US troop deployment in Iraq, no such weapons have been found by US weapons inspectors scouring the war-ravaged country.
News flash for Michele and Kofi, the terrorist and most "rogue" countries don't give a shit about international law and certainly, none of those laws have as yet held any terrorist and brought them before an international court.
and Saudi Clerics Reject US Criticism:
(...)"How do the Americans have the right to speak about violation of religious freedoms and human rights in this country or another?" questioned a leading Shia leader, Shaikh Hasan al-Saffar.
He said US support of Israel, the occupation of neighboring Iraq and the reported mistreatment of Arabs and Muslims in the United States since 2001 had robbed Washington of moral high ground.(...)
(...)The report said religious freedoms were denied to all Saudis except those who adhere to the "state sanctioned Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam".
Salih al-Fawzan, senior Sunni preacher and member of Saudi Arabia's top religious body – the Supreme Association of Ulama – condemned the United States as an 'infidel'' country.
He also defended restrictions against non-Muslim religions in Saudi Arabia. "Prophet Muhammad said there should not be two religions in the Arabian peninsula," al-Fawzan said.
Does anyone else see the irony of these statements? And people there believe them with all their heart. Believe that their brother Muslims are persecuted here in the United States and that the United States is bent on destroying their religion and culture. They perpetrate the myth that the freedom of the United States is just that: a myth. Not for them. This is their government owned media telling them this so that they will not question their benevolence. So that they will believe that all of the actions that their government takes is for their own good. Does this remind you of the USSR? This is the tact of all totalitarian governments.
This article was in response to the United States state department placing Saudi Arabia on a list of countries that deny religious freedom and enforce one state religion: wahhabi/sunni. Why is this important? Powell and the State Department have made remarks recently about Saudi Arabia needing to open up the paths of information into their country. The Saudi's are resisting of course.
What else can we see:
New Book Alleges Bush Snorted Cocaine at Camp David
The only good part about the article is that it does identify Kelly as a gossip mongerer, although they do lean just ever so slightly towards saying her account could be true. They also remind readers that she wrote smear books on a number of people, including the British Royal Family.
US Dollar May Devalue Further
Guess what that's about? US economy is going to bust. The UN said so.
The Davinci Code is Banned in Lebanon
In the name of protecting Christian beliefs. Apparently, the fictional novel contains passages that Jesus married Mary Magdelene and sired children. This proves that it is not just Muslims in the middle east that are ignorant supporters of totalitarian suppression.
But interestingly, some one in Lebanon complains...
The ban prompted the president of the Lebanese publishers' association, Ahmad Fadl Allah Aasi, to address an open letter to Lebanese President Emile Lahud to denounce "suppression of freedoms," on Tuesday.
"We now have a ministry of culture, so why do security [services] deal with culture? We want to protect literary and creative productions against any suppression of freedoms," he said.
"If Beirut loses its freedom ... Lebanon would lose its reason to exist ... and Beirut [should] remain the window to foreign cultures in the region," he said
Washington's secret nuclear war
Laugh if you dare. It is basically an article about the US using depleted uranium rounds...
Illegal weapons of mass destruction have not only been found in Iraq but have been used against Iraqis and have even killed US troops.
But Washington and its allies have tried to cover up this outrage because the chief culprit is the US itself, argue American and other experts trying to expose what they say is a war crime.
The WMD in question is depleted uranium (DU). A radioactive by-product of uranium enrichment, DU is used to coat ammunition such as tank shells and "bunker busting" missiles because its density makes it ideal for piercing armour
So, not only is it an illegal war, but we are using illegal weapons of mass destruction. But you should go to their site. There is a picture of two US soldiers lying down on the ground, looking like they are clutching their stomachs. Under which it claims that over 27k soldiers, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have sought treatment for exposure. Then there is the picture of the deformed fetus in which they claim that this is the reason for this problem.
Dr Jenan Ali, a senior Iraqi doctor at Basra hospital's College of Medicine, says her studies show a 100% rise in child leukemia in the region in the decade after the first Gulf war, with a 242% increase in all types of malignancies.
You notice that Dr. Ali does not actually claim that depleted uranium is the cause. What is more likely the cause is the improperly stored radioactive material and looting of devices (such as barrels to store water) from the Tuweitha Nuclear Research Center. These people did not even have enough information to know that the place was dangerous. Further, it's been stored there since around Gulf War I. Imagine that.
But, we digress...
Boycott Isreal
Do I have to explain this one?
US Soldiers Battle Their Conscience
When Sergeant Abd Allah Webster was ordered to pack his bags and deploy to Iraq this February, he refused with a heavy heart.
He knew the decision would put him at odds with his superiors and potentially cost him his liberty.
But despite the consequences, he took a stand because he believed his faith precluded him from killing fellow Muslims.
Abd is in jail. Read the whole story. They show a picture of him and his little baby and talk about how sad it is he has been separated from her. More lines as well that make you understand the gist of the report...
According to the US army, since 2003 it has received 96 applications, 48 of which have been approved.
This is more than four and a half times as many as the army received in 2001 and in 2002.
But JE McNeil, executive director of the Washington-based Centre for Conscience and War, says the military vastly underestimates the true number of applications.
"Nobody knows the true figures but it is definitely in the hundreds," she told Aljazeera.net.
This is to make their own people believe that even the US armed forces personnel IN LARGE NUMBERS object to the war in Iraq or war in general. I'm still waiting to hear what happened to Marine Cpl Hassoun and his trip to Lebanon.
When looking at the front page, be sure to check out the 8 photo essay showing the "carnage in Fallujah". Two guesses what kind of people are in the photos.
And objectively of course, they will print a story about a "bomber" targeting Iraqi police and killing 23 people and wounding 54 others, but that takes back seat to the innocent women and children in Fallujah.
The strike on Saturday followed an air raid on Friday that killed three people - among them an elderly couple - and several bombardments the previous night that left 44 people dead around Falluja, some 50kms west of Baghdad.
Doctors said several women and children were among the dead, while US forces described the strikes as targeting safe houses belonging to Jordanian-born fugitive Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and/or his supporters.
No report here of any one but women and children being killed. There are never any dead or injured fighters. I don't know about you guys, but, if this was my only source of info, I guess I'd have to believe that the US army was committing genocidal acts or was completely incompetent. But, since I have a clue about the real world, we should all know that four things are most likely:
Bahjat adds that Iraqi officials who were opponents of Saddam Hussein should be grateful to Aljazeera because the channel had given them a platform to present themselves to both Iraqi and wider Arab audiences.
There's a nice bit of journalistic ethics. It's not the government that holds power, it is Al Jazeera and these poor schmucks should be GRATEFUL that Al Jazeera daned to allow them a few precious minutes of their time. My friend Sam tells us what he thinks about Al Jazeera here, Aug 7
It is an easy work required nothing but a tape-show yet with their limited mentality they see it as a big achievement. It is certainly nothing but a failure. We know Al Jazeera broadcast from Qatar another Wah[h]abist incubating state which feeds the terrorists with money and ideology mostly under cover. Al Jazeera also exaggerates the news and show it from one angle which stimulates and exacerbates the insurgent attacks and violence in Iraq and the whole Middle East. They call it resistance yet we know that some time they film criminals or thefts.
You know that old saying: if it looks like it, feels like it, smells like it and tastes like it, it probably is a pile of shit. Even an average Iraqi on the street knows propaganda when he sees it.
To be fair, and not appear to be the alter-propagandist, Al Jazeera does report on other important issues:
Arab Reform
If you aren't up on this subject, you should. Certainly, parts of the story still claim that the US Middle East Initiative is intrusive and designed to destroy Arab/Islamic culture and advocate that "change must come from within". But, I'd love to remind Al Jaz that they wouldn't even be in print or on TV if it weren't for pressure from the US, much less talking about "Arab reforms". But, I suppose they will keep on living in their fantasy world.
Other stories include:
Chromosome 5 link to spinal atrophy
Deaf Children Form Own Language
These are nice pieces, but the majority of the information is all about the bad westerners and their interaction with the Middle East. Do you have to wonder now why the folks in this region look at us as evil interlopers? This doesn't even cover the issues of Palestine and Israel.
So, what else have we learned about the enemy?
In short, part of the battle is: propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. And I don't mean "propaganda" as in "lies to further our means", but in the form of REAL information about the US, it's citizens, how we think, how democracy works, why the "insurgents" or "militants" or whatever they want to call them are dangerous for the Arab/Muslim world.
Of course, I have only given you information from one source, but, in the middle east this is practically THE source. What is the US answer to this propaganda machine?
Internews: Supports Open Media World Wide
Radio Free Europe: Serving Europe, Middle East and Western Asia
Radio Free Iraq (Arabic only)
Al Hurra (the free one): American TV for Arab audiences; satellite
Projects for Human Rights Recognition (this is long but very interesting)
Middle East Television Network and a statement about being behind the curve and trying to catch up quickly.
For years, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy has monitored closely the efforts of the U.S. government to counter the often emotional and misleading anti-American reports being broadcast to Middle Eastern audiences. Radio and television are the preferred, and most powerful, information mediums in the Middle East. Yet the United States has had very little success in communicating through the collection of state-run channels and independent stations, such as Al Jazeera, all of which broadcast an overwhelming barrage of anti-American sounds and images.
Now more than ever, the United States needs its own voice in the Arabic language. The pervasive anti-Americanism in the Middle East can no longer be ignored, nor can it be lessened with marketing gimmicks or propaganda. The new network will provide a steady diet of the truth, backed by the American tradition of journalism, to open the Arab world to freedom and democracy. By utilizing balanced and objective reporting with a mix of news and information, this network will gain a loyal following.
In today's world, American foreign policy objectives cannot succeed against a tide of hostile public opinion. Foreign leaders will not join international coalitions without the consent of their people. Thus, the war on terrorism will cease in the absence of favorable public opinion in those countries.
Some more on METV initiative by the US
Radio Sawa: Arabic; English "about us" is available but we're not the audience, but, if you are interested in getting some exposure to cultural music as well as hear what kind of western music is being played, I suggest you go their and link to it "live". I'm listening to it now and it sounds like it is playing a cool Arab love song, sort of "Gloria Estafan/Julio Iglesias" meets "Iraq". I wish I could understand what they were saying. Sub-titles would be nice.
While these are all a good start, we must remember that for every one of these there are 100 of them that vary in opinion from outright anti-Americanism to vague "America: maybe good, but...". America must put more money where it's mouth is. It needs 24/7 coverage, just like the regular media and Al Jazeera. It must be able to go where things are happening and report with a modicum of objectivity while at the same time, promoting the message in order to gain an audience. The first audience that grows is likely to be those that are just interested in how the information is juxtopositioned against their state owned TV, but at least it's a start. From all I've read it seems that it needs more funding and better people. The Broadcasting Board of Governors might even need to change to fire it up.
Most of all, we need to commit to this 100%. This cannot be half assed. We may need to press for the government to fund this better. I've heard rumors that Al Hurra in Iraq has had difficulties keeping journalists because we are cheap compared to the other channels who are willing to pay for these folks to go into dangerous areas and report for them. Further, I've also heard difficulties with type and condition of equipment. Maybe it's me, but it seems we should spare no dollar on this effort.
It's the first step in "divide and conquer" strategy.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Divide and Conquer - (part III) What Do We Know About The Enemy?
The first thing that we know about the enemy is that he [sic] has taken a sect of Islam, a philosophy or teaching or school of thought, and turned it into his ideology, his political statement and, finally, into his goal for a future of Pan Islamic Unity. With his view of Islam as the controlling force in this bizarre future utopia, loosely reminiscent of the Ottoman Empire, without a king like Saladin mucking up the relationship between the Ulama(religious governing body) and the people (ummah).
I had a conversation with a man in Saudi Arabia. Go to the inner sanctum to read about my conversation...
I've noted this before, Osama bin Laden nor Zawahiri have set themselves up as the "savior" of the people. They continue to pose themselves as nothing but fighters, holy warriors, on behalf of the only great and infallible leader, Allah. You must understand that, regardless of what happens, either victory or defeat, the Qu'ran instills the belief that it is all Allah's will. Allah is perfect, therefore, whatever happens is perfect. Further, anything that OBL or Zawahiri do, regardless of mistakes or less than sterling behavior on their part (such as killing 3000 people) must be good or, if not exactly good, will be forgiven by Allah as they fight on his [sic] behalf.
The most interesting thing about bin Laden and Zawahiri is that, people who have similar beliefs, but are not part of the inner circle, do not believe that bin Laden or Zawahiri perpetrated this deed. I personally had an internet conversation approximately three months ago with a person named Zahir (I've since been informed that this is a man's name by Mahmood from Bahrain) in which they insisted that bin Laden had no part in this horrible deed. He is a pious Muslim. Further, they informed me that they believed that no such thing took place. It was a movie created by the American government to give them an excuse to bomb the Taliban who were good people and only built schools and roads and brought peace to Afghanistan barbarians.
I first made this person give me information so that I could ascertain whether they were for real or not. I was able to confirm they were posting from a Saudi Arabia connection (we were on a Saudi blog which has since been shut down, probably because the writer was not kind towards the Saudi government - no news as to yet what happened to the writer, except that he gave one ominous post that somebody was too close to him). After confirming the commenters location, I proceeded to tell him he were being lied to by their media. I saw it happen live. I have friends that live there and confirm there was a giant hole in the ground where once two towers stood. There were thousands of funerals. This was no movie. It was real.
He answered back that, even if that was so, bin Laden could have no part in it, he was a pious man who would not murder people. (I loved the references to "pious" as if no Muslim would ever think to perpetrate such a crime because he believed in Allah. This must be why we continue to hear the Muslim population decry the terrorist actions as "not Islamic").
I answered back that there were videos of bin Laden meeting with other members and laughing about his unexpected success. The return answer was that it was a dubbed tape; a creation of the American CIA. No pious Muslim would make such a film of himself. I reminded Zahir that Osama was in the habit of making and releasing films of himself speaking to his Muslim brothers, did he not see them on Al Jazeera? I also asked if he thought our CIA was so powerful, was he afraid to be on the blog with me? There was no return answer to that.
I then commented on the "goodness" of the Taliban. I told "Zahir" that the Taliban might have built schools, but they prohibited females from attending. They threw women out of the government and put them out of business forcing them, many widows, to go begging because they had no other resources. Zahir informed me that he knew some Taliban and they were good people and would have taken care of these unfortunate women. Further, they should be taken care of by their male relatives or seek another marriage. I reminded Zahir that many men were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and many women were left with no male relative to care for them. Afghanistan was poor and that the Taliban did not have the resources to care for them, either.
My last comment to Zahir was if he had seen any pictures or films about the "good works" that the Taliban had performed. No, he said, but he had Taliban friends and they had told him all about their good deeds. I proceeded to tell him about the film of the Taliban taking a woman, who had been beaten nearly to death by her husband and had hid with some friends, to the soccer field, forced to kneel in the middle and, in front of her family and children, was executed with a shot in the back of the head. Is that the goodness of the Taliban that he spoke of?
Zahir became obviously agitated and responded that he did not want to talk about the Taliban anymore. He knew them to be good. He would believe me about 9/11 being real, but he insisted that bin Laden was not responsible for it. Somebody else was (Zionist maybe?). Then he went off line.
So, here we have our first difficulty. Osama and friends have taken on a cult following like the mythical Robin Hood or Jesse James. Fighting against the evil governments of the world (including theirs) for the good of the people. While he continues to place himself as nothing but a humble warrior in Allah's army, he has gained a following that seems to believe him to be possibly the Mahdi, the savior of the Muslim people prophesied by Mohammed.
For those who read my four part series on "Mohammed the High Jacker", you will note that all religions believe that a savior will come and save them from whatever woes they will suffer in the future. Of course, it is always the future and there are always those that are prophesizing the imminent return of such a person. Sort of like the Arthurian legends of England. I guess it is hard for some to believe that this is what we have sown and this we must reap alone.
So, the first thing that we know is that, while some will participate directly in the actions of the enemy (bombings, kidnappings, high jackings, etc), there are those that are passive enablers. They might not participate directly, but will give approval and support. Both financially and morally. Fully believing that they are financing what amounts to an armed religious mission and it is only armed because evil powers (namely the United States) are after the poor missionary soldiers of Islam who are only trying to protect and serve their Muslim brothers.
What else can we learn from this conversation?
Friday, September 17, 2004
Still Here - Reading, Writing and Political Correctness
Well, just wanted to drop a line and let you know that I'm still here. I am in the middle of reading some additional information on the history of Sunni/Salafi/Wahhabi/Shia/etc rolled up with some Al-Qaida manifesto to try and clarify the potential "Divide and Conquer" strategy of the "war on terror".
Just reading some interesting info on the Saudi Royal Family and successions and political divisions (ie, reformist, pro-US, anti-us, Wahhabi or die, etc) within the royal family. Seems like this is a microcosm of how we need to do "divide and conquer" within the general population of the ME.
When I feel like I have a clue, I'll write some more on the subject. Maybe have to go more than three parts, this part is so interesting and complex.
In the mean time, commenter "madtom" makes an interesting observation on controlling the flow of oil and terrorism:
This is not news to anyone, we are well aware that the worlds economy and our own war fighting ability, hinges on a supply of oil. The question that
you should be asking is, what is this administration doing about it?And all
answers can not be just pound the enemy, we need to take the enemies best
weapon off the table.Everyone should buy a hybrid car and truck and save a
third the oil than a regular car. Sometimes the solution is right there in
front of your eyes.Madtom
This is one very interesting part of the "divide and conquer" thought. I think I've posted before that I believe taking the "oil" issue off the table might implode Saudi Arabia and might not. The reality is, if we don't buy it (and we only buy about 12% of oil from these folks) somebody else will. Maybe not a good reason, but certainly means we at least have some financial pull with these folks. If we had substantial oil reserves or alternatives, I could see putting a blockade up. On the other hand, China and the Korea's get almost 80% of their oil from SA and that might not be too good. France and Germany get about 30%, but, if you know your history, the SA put an embargo on all oil and just about shut down the US, France and Germany.
On the other hand, if you remember my posting on the famed "Cheney Energy Task Force" and the demand to have all of the documents released. Lots of folks were running around swearing it was the administrations attempt to undermine the EPA regs on behalf of their business associates. Nice try. If you actually read the documents (and I'm too lazy to look it up and midnight; go find my "Blood for Oil" series in archives) some of it WAS about how certain regulations was making it difficult (read: more costly) to refine oil here (oil refineries in the US now number about 75 opposed to the hey day of the 80's when it was more like a hundred or so) or produce certain energy alternates like coal, natural gas and hydro-electric. The task force took recommendations from multiple sources (including these businesses) about how they could actually manage increasing these energy sources if certain restrictions were raised and others were enforced (I can't tell you if this is good or bad since I didn't see any environmental reports to go with it).
Also on the task force agenda and in the documents was the review of existing oil reserves, those that were drilled, those that were being explored and those that no one explored yet because of extraction/logistics issues. From my view, it appeared a legitimate attempt to review our options. The Supreme Court threw out the suit demanding to see all of these documents under the "Freedom of Information" act, upholding the right of the President and his staff to have "confidential meetings and information" in regards to policy making. I fully agreed with the Supreme Court mainly because I thought that the few documents that were released was pretty much "telegraphing" our intentions to every Tom, Dick or Harryto go find other energy sources and by oil from some place outside of the OPEC world.
Uh...Anybody notice we're at war? Why would we or should we tell our enemies what we are planning to do to keep our energy resources viable? In doing so, and not having identified or fully implemented an alternate plan, doesn't that give the folks that we are dependent on (like SA) a heads up and a weapon to use against us (like decreasing supplies or embargoes)?
Also, if we are looking to perform "divide and conquer", would you cut off support to your allies in a potentially hostile government (ie, Saudi Arabia/SA)?
One other issue...I've been reading about the hybrid cars. Seems like we need a hefty amount of oil to create the energy source for the hybrid vehicle. Almost a catch 22. Good for the consumer at the gas station until you look into the cost of actual production for the alternate fuel. And guess who will eventually pay?
Not to say that Tom's comment doesn't pose an interesting point. We in the consumer world can "vote with our feet" as they say by developing and supporting alternate energy sources, buying cars that get 70 miles to the gallon and doing some energy conservation around the house.
My opinion is that we need to, at least, be in the position to say that we don't NEED some folks oil, but rather WANT to buy it, if only they would participate a little stronger against the terrorists. Or, at least, be prepared to do something different about our oil needs should SA and related areas implode.
Just some thoughts. Maybe the rest of you have some ideas?
In regards to "political correctness"...
So, I'm walking through my "home" office (the branch in the city where I live) going to the lunch room to grab a soda (yes, I know it's bad for you, but that's my preferred "caffeine" fix and I am REALLY mean when I don't have at least 2 during the day) when I notice the "public" display board outside of the lunch room. There, folks post all sort of interesting things, like jokes or pictures or advertisement for the sale of personal computers and such. One of the items on the board was a four page email. It was basically in the format of a multiple question test. The test and questions went something like this:
In 1993, the WTC bombing was performed by:
a) Middle class white Americans
b) Red Chinese partisans
c) Frenchmen that drank to much wine
d) Arab Muslim men between the ages of 19-40
All of the questions were similar and had the same answer "D: Arab Muslim men...
The last part of the email went something like "This is why we should have profiling...all of the terrorists involved in these incidents were Arab Muslim Men...write your congressman."
Now, I wasn't disputing the answers to the questions, but I had a huge concern. This email was posted in a public space AT A COMPANY location. While I know that we have no practicing Muslim's in that office, but, that seemed like blatant discrimination and I'd hate for one of our customers that was Muslim or for us to hire a new employee that was so and have them read the email.
The sentiments of the email might be true, but I was not going to let that pass. I've posted my own little rip at Islam here a number of times, but work is a totally different environment. There can be no intimation of discrimination. Opens us up for law suits (instead, we have everyone "screened" before hire).
So, I discretely went into the HR department and said, "hey, take a look at this email. Do you think it's appropriate?" HR agreed with me that that is not an appropriate venue for someone's prejudice. It's work, for the love of G-D! The email was removed forthwith.
Like I said, I might have agreed with some of the contents, but it cannot invade our work environment.
Anybody else experience this kind of issue?
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Controlling The Flow of Oil - The New Caliphate or Ottoman Empire Two
In my posting on Sept 13 regarding the strategies of the enemy, I speculated the following:
Cutting Off Supply Lines: Controlling 40% or more of the world's oil and controlling the water ways that allow quick distribution (like Suez Canal or Indonesian water ways) would severely hamper any country's ability to prosecute a war(...)
Why am I concerned? Go to the inner sanctum.
In a recent article regarding the Indonesian bombing of the Australian Embassy, and found at the Command Post,intelligence suggests that the Islamists are preparing to control or, at least, hamper the flow of oil and other products through the busy shipping lanes of Indonesia:
Fanatics from the Islamic terror faction blamed for last week’s suicide attack on the Australian embassy in Indonesia are planning to hijack an oil tanker or freighter and turn it into a floating bomb, The Telegraph has learned.
United States intelligence has passed on warnings about the plot to launch an attack in the region’s busy shipping lanes to several countries, including Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. They acted after intercepting communications between activists from Jemaah Islamiah (JI), a network linked to al Qa’eda.
The terrorists have been discussing plans to seize a vessel using local pirates. The hijacked ship would be wired with explosives and then directed at other vessels, sailed towards a port or used to threaten the narrow and congested sea routes around Indonesia.
Any idea what would happen to certain economies in the area or oil supplies or trade through those water ways if an attack was successful?
We are not dealing with a bunch of amateurs in warfare here. This is no small potatoes. This isn't about Osama. This is about the New Ottoman Empire, coming soon to a country near you.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Divide and Conquer - (Part II) Is Iraq More Important Than WMD And Spreading Democracy?
In the previous post, I was speculating on the goals of the enemy and their strategies. I made the following comment:
Those who decry Iraq have completely missed it's strategic importance in this war. Those that simply cry out for the capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden and dismiss Iraq as a distraction have no idea about strategies of global warfare. No idea about the make up and purpose of the enemy. No idea about their tactics, strategy or greater plan
And they have no idea what purposes Iraq serves for the enemy or can serve for us. I would like to discuss these concepts in the inner sanctum.
I was visiting a fellow blogger and reader here, Frater Bovious and noticed his post about predicting the problems with insurgency in Iraq as we prepared for war in February 2003.
(...)My concern is the lack of a defined measurable objective that is achievable, and final. The objective of "getting Hussein", really just a step in the process, does not define the endpoint. The primary question after the getting is "what then?"
(...)In fact, Uncle Buck, an almost mythical figure known only to a select few, can give cogent reasons as to why(...)
(...Uncle Buck speaks)Your inflammatory rhetoric has got me thinking...
War is not inevitable. It is not "forced upon us." It is something we choose (or not) as a sovereign nation that has a DUTY TO ITS CITIZENS to defend the national interest.
War is expensive. War is an ugly hell. If we go to war, people will die, the innocent along with the guilty. In my mind there are two main reasons for war:
1. Preserve our way of life as Americans.
2. Prevent greater bloodshed if nothing is done.(...)
(...)How much "proof" do we need to act against a perceived threat? I ask you: how many lives would have been spared in World War II if we had attached the Japanese fleet in 1940?
The individuals who actually start wars rarely do the dying; asking other people to go in harm's way is an awesome responsibility. Is it possible that President Bush has access to information that he can't share with Dan Rather? I think he has. Sometimes none of us can know the "right" decision until after it is made. This is when we pray to God for an ethical leader with some integrity and inner strength, not for an opinion poll watcher.
History will be our judge in this "war on terror."
That said: history teaches me that TALK not seen as serious and CERTAIN TO BE FOLLOWED BY ACTION is not only a waste of time, it damages our national security by revealing a weak political character. We would be wise to follow TR's advice to "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it becomes necessary to use that stick we better swing it with both hands, for everyone's sake.
Here's what is bothering me. I can see going after and destroying his capabilities to use chemical and biological weapons. I can see stopping his efforts to gain nuclear capability. But, do we really want Imperial America?
That may be an inevitable consequence of starting down this path. We will have to set up a provisional government, and then prop up whatever leader takes the place of Hussein. Doing such is not a long term solution. In fact the longer we are there, the more destabilizing I believe that will be to the rest of the region.
What are the long term plans, and their repercussions? How far down the road are we thinking? I've heard nothing about how ending this is defined. In fact, I recently read that "planners" had come late to the problem of "after the war"!
And another thing. Just how exactly does this address Osama Bin Laden? It seems we have forgotten about him. Is he in Iraq? Maybe he is. Or was. What country do we take over next?
These are very important points. I am not sure how to answer all of these questions, but I did reply to Frater with my thoughts on why Iraq has more importance than simply Saddam or WMD:
From my perspective, I personally did not understand the condition that Iraq was in. I mean the infrastructure, the complete and utter degradation of it's civil institutions.
I really thought, and obviously I hadn't researched the topic back then, that, if we did a constrained war and largely preserved their existing infrastructure, that we would be able to move through the process of setting up a government and providing services for the people and stabilizing the country.
Along with that, while I had thought that we would see some guerilla activity, I really believed that this would be limited and we would have more working room to accomplish the necessary projects to get the country up and running.
Of course, I will also tell you that I did not look at the really big strategic picture of the middle east and where [our] troops were stationed before. I am no longer shocked by our current situation or that we are not leaving there any time soon. Iraq has a lot more strategic purposes than offing the madman regime of Saddam.
Iraq is a staging area. These folks are saying "imperial America" by our desire to go there and stay there. I think this is more about "strategy" every day. Positioning our troops and supplies in an area surrounded by friendly countries in the ME (Tajikistan, uzbekistan, Turkey, etc). Iraq is the in road to the area. Saudi Arabia can no longer hold that distinction because they asked us to pull our troops and they are in a very tenuous place with more than half of their government controlled by pro-wahhabi groups.
I believe that Saudi Arabia has been in a low level civil war for many years. At least this last decade. Much of it was in shifting power struggles within the government with each side controlling some portion of the armed services. I believe that it makes it very probable that, at some point, the extreme side of their government is going to demand more recognition for it's roll in government just as surely as the less extreme (note "less extreme" not "non-extreme") portion of the government continues to try and modernize some portions of their society and government.
What will be the catalyst for a more defined struggle within SA will be the eventual demise of their current "king". He has been incompacitated for years and is getting older. He did not select his successor before he became incompacitated. That means the succession is in question and, when you have t[w]o powerful factions within the government, it is a given that there will be a serious issue when the time comes.
Also, it's very obvious that the positioning of Iraq as a friendly country between Iran and Syria gives us additional staging points to intercept or take other preventative or reactionary actions against Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia.
In a sense, I suppose someone could look at this as imperialistic as it puts the US squarely in the middle of the ME and able to control certain situations. And it would be blind of some to ignore that these countries are the major exporters of oil. Oil, that,if interrupted by fighting in those countries, would put the world (note: "world" not just the "US") in a serious predicament.
But again, there is a simple look at this situation. These countries are also the supporters and exporters of terrorists who have their own agenda for gaining power in the region. That power is contingent on, regardless of our actual presence there, attacking the US and it's interests around the world to insure that we are weakened and unable to interfere in their plans.
This struggle is not "david and goliath" (with the US as Goliath), but more along the lines of fighting the spread of fascism or communism in Europe.
maybe some would say we are acting as the "world policeman". But, these factions already attacked us and we should not take this threat lightly.
So, we have an issue with how the war is going. This article is concerned about our "exit" strategy. The Democrats have been hammering on this for sometime. The President continually says that we will not leave until the "job is done" without giving us a plan for troop withdrawal. I think that the reason for not giving such a plan is because this thing is bigger than taking out Saddam's regime as a potential threat. This is also about the other potential threats from the area and staging our troops in the area to handle them.
Frater replied...
Kat, thanks for the comment. I've been thinking about reasons why we should have done what we did in Iraq, regardless of the stated reasons. It is a multi-faceted argument, but you have caused several ideas to coalesce in my mind. The strategic fact of where Iraq is cannot be ignored.
It all really depends on if you think Islamifascism is a long term dangerous problem, or not. To me that question was answered in 9-11. I've heard people describe 9/11 as a "security lapse" and minimize what happened. I don't know how to minimize it. The world is changed, and not for the better. The fact of the world trade centers collapsing is a source of pride and celebration among a significant part of the world.
Islamofascism IS a longterm, dangerous problem in my book. This region, along with it's slow and ponderous movements towards modernization, also has a growing contingent of radicalized Islamists. They have been there and growing for many years. It seems since we dared go to Kuwait and throw out Saddam that this group is growing by leaps and bounds. It certainly existed before 9/11. It existed before the first WTC bombing in 1993. We have just chosen to ignore it and treat it as a marginal group without any real capabilities of challenging us at our own peril. We were wrong.
Now these folks and their groups are dug in like a tick on a camel's ass. No. Not A tick. A tick infestation complimented by some fleas and barely effected by the occasional scratch. Now we are in need of some serious flea and tick dip. And, like all treatments, it's harsh and smelly and the treatment can be bad for the camel and the owner if applied too liberally or applied too conservatively.
Other Thoughts On Iraq's Strategic Purpose: Enemy In Our Rear
Some other thoughts had occurred to me about other purposes. For instance, the 9/11 report documents repeated contact between Saddam's regime and Al Qaida. There is no definitive proof that Saddam supported Al Qaida in their plans for 9/11. There are certain intelligence reports that indicate he may have helped train them. He certainly had any number of "mujihadeen" in his "fedeyeen" militia. He certainly allowed Zarqawi to be treated in THE major Ba'athi hospital in Baghdad after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Zarqawi certainly set up camp with the Ansar Al-Islam fanatics in Kurdish Iraq.
There are those that say that Zarqawi's presence in Kurdish Iraq proves that Saddam had no control over them. I find this to be rather naive thinking. Ansar Al-Islam took part in any number of raids and battles against the peshmerga of Kurdish Iraq. In particular Kirkuk and Mosul where Saddam was attempting "Arabization" of the area by moving the Kurds and replacing them with "Arabs" from either within Iraq or immigrants from Saudi Arabia and Palestine. Ansar Al-Islam did not attack Saddam. Further, claims that he was "secular" and did not lean towards "Islamism" are also naive and forgetful. Since the day that Clinton signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, Saddam has been slowly and more surely proclaiming is "Islamic" virtues and imploring his "Islamic" comrades to help him against the "evil Americans" which he did and so did "Baghdad Bob", right up to and during the war. Very much a plea to the "the enemy of my enemy" to be his friend. And again, the success of his recruiting for "fedeyeen" that was full of foreigners, tells me that he was quite capable of garnering their support.
It would not seem out of the realm of possibilities that Ansar al Islam, this off shoot of Al Qaida, had a "no contest" hand shake on their ability to exist and operate in Iraq. Particularly if it met Saddam's goals of screwing with the Kurds.
That means that Saddam, along with giving thousands to Palestinian homicide bomber's families, if left to exist as we fight on our war against terrorism, would be a very real threat, an enemy, in our rear area. Not a good place to allow the enemy to be. When looking at the region, you would consider topographical information and where your next battle might be and go forth immediately to obtain a certain flag point or goal and keep the enemy from using that territory as their own hiding place or for staging the next battleground. I believe this occurred directly after the invasion of Afghanistan as it was and we were already behind the eight ball.
Iraq meets a number of criteria for invasion and it's purposes.
Next post, we will discuss naming the enemy and giving it a distinct name, rallying point, the folks that don't want to know and why we may need to continue ".
Special thanks again to Frater Bovious for allowing me to re-print this section.
Go check him out!
Dante's Inferno
Ok...I promised we would only have one humor break, but I was leaving the humor world and found this one. Since we already did the "Good/Evil" blog thing, I thought a little more "damned or saved" humor might be in order. Something some of you might be interested in finding out.
Besides, I always liked this passage:
Besides, I always liked this passage:
Through me the way into the suffering city,
Through me the way to the eternal pain,
Through me the way that runs among the lost.
Justice urged on my high artificer;
My maker was divine authority,
The highest wisdom, and the primal love.
Before me nothing but eternal things were made,
And I endure eternally.
Abandon every hope, ye who enter here.
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Third Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Moderate |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | Low |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | High |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | Very High |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Low |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | Low |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | Very Low |
| Level 7 (Violent) | Moderate |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Moderate |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Very Low |
Take the Dante Inferno Hell Test
So, I am "gluttonous". Probably that answer I gave about thinking I should keep all my own money and spend every last dime on what I want. Or maybe it's because I said I would not give up good tasting food for sex. Of course, if I answered yes, I wonder what my other ratings would have been? My only hope is that I scored "moderate" on the repenting side. Maybe I won't have to wallow in the mud forever?
Well...what are you waiting for? Go find out what level of hell you'll be residing in. I need to know where to send your edition of "Hell Hath No Fury".
MWAAAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAA! Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
What Peanuts Character Are You?
You are Marcie!
Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
That is so damn funny. Accept, my brothers always told me I looked like Peppermint Patty. Or, Pippi Longstocking (hey, if you don't know who that is, you probably aren't old enought to read this blog....LOL)!
That was a humor break. Now, back to our original scheduled programming.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Divide and Conquer - (Part I) Enemy Ideology and Strategy
Disclaimer: I am not a member of the administration nor have any practical military experience. Anything I say here is in regards to my own musings on the subject.
In the past four months (and, Lord, have they flew by), I have visited many sites in the blog world. I first came by the blog world having read an article in my local paper about the Iraq blogs. Particularly, IraqTheModel. I was searching for some good news in what seemed to be turning into the quagmire often mentioned by my old party (you know who that is). I found some sites that helped me coalesce my position on our war on terrorism (including Iraq and Afghanistan) and politics. One thing to admire and cringe about at the same time is the straight forwardness of many of the blog's postings and comments. I've found that people (including me) are less constrained by the apparent annonimity of the internet (probably why porno sites on line are so damn popular). They say what they say and they mean it. Most of the time. There are some that would be called "trolls" who lend nothing to a discussion, but throw out fire bombs (generally insults) in order to rile up the comment board. But, there are equally those that say some very controversial things and they stand by them. They feel them. They mean them. Some of them amount to statements such as "kill them all and let God sort them out". I've seen this comment on some sites that are, by far, exceedingly right wing. Generally, the postings on the subject are not so blatant, but sometimes they are. We're talking about Muslims here. No need to beat around the bush. Their are some who fully believe that Islam as a religion is a grotesque and evil stain on humanity and it should be wiped from the face of the earth. Some people have advocated "nuking" Mecca and Medina and any other holy site of Islam and then insisting that we hold these people hostage to additional "nuking" until they all converted from Islam. No suggestion as to what appropriate religion that would be, whether Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, etc. I'm not sure, even at my angriest moment, that I can relate to these kind of statements. There are some facts and figures that get in the way of making this a viable solution to wiping out our actual enemies. Do you know that it is estimated that there are over 1.5 BILLION adherents to Islam? Do you know that Muslims are spread out on almost every major continent if not over 50 countries across the world? Basically, what they are advocating is the destruction of the world. Simple as that. A real live crusade against a religion. Pitting western "civilized" worlds against largely second and third world countries. Certainly, militarily and with the "nuke" in our arsenal, we could make this a reality. To some extent. Hardly viable though, when you look at the countries that are only part Muslim. Also, aside from nuking 1/3 of the world, what sort of viable military strategy could we use that wouldn't drive entire populations into a guerilla warfare against us (us as in "civilized world")? If you declare war on a religion than you have to be prepared for the consequences. I see the world as hardly that. We have progressed to the point where we no longer see it necessary to destroy whole civilizations in order to make our point or declare victory. Of course, we are talking about today. We are not talking about the potential that a nuclear bomb or "dirty bomb" goes off in your neighborhood. At that point, this discussion may become moot. But right now, let's deal with "right now". Those who decry Iraq have completely missed it's strategic importance in this war. Those that simply cry out for the capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden and dismiss Iraq as a distraction have no idea about stratgies of global warfare. No idea about the make up and purpose of the enemy. No idea about their tactics, strategy or greater plan. Those who demand the destruction of Islam, as incompatable with our lifestyle as it may be, are simply the worst sorts of idealists. The most dangerous when you get down to it. What we are missing from this group is a cohesive name for their ideology. One that is not depedent or not solely dependent on the name "Islam". We too must be able to divide and conquer. You cannot do so when proclaiming a whole religion as an enemy of the state. If we are able to do so, split them from the base of Islam, we will have narrowed the battle down to a few hundred thousand (manageable) as opposed to fighting with 1/3 of the world. I think this is one area where the government could use some serious help. Once you name a philosophy, it becomes a real and defined enemy, able to be grasped. I have as yet to hear anyone define this appropriately. Even my own attempts are blurred. What do you name an ideology that takes from a religion and applies marxist tenets? What do you name an enemy that has refused to be defined but us? What do you name the enemy when you must be able to cull it from the millions of potential allies of the same origin or at least keep them from joining the fight en masse against us? Think about it. Divide and conquer starts by first identifying the enemy and then dividing them from their usual counterparts. Next entry on this subject will be discussing our tactics and possibly naming the enemies noted here.
Now, having got that out of the way, I've been thinking for sometime about different subjects that seem to repeatedly be in the news, blogs, comment sections and general discussions I've had with people. I will try to bring some of my thoughts together in the inner sanctum.
Islam: A Religion of Peace or A Religion of Destruction?
Kill Them All and Let God Sort Them Out or Divide and Conquer?
There are some things about Islam that I, as a free and emancipated woman, cannot relate to and would not subject myself to given the choice. I have that choice so you will not see me converting under my own auspices. I would venture to say that, if that choice was taken away from me, I would turn into a guerilla and head up to the hills. Having said that, as with all religions, if someone chooses to adhere to the strictness of those tenets, more power to them. Obviously, we are talking about people that have a choice. Here in the US, anyone can choose to do so just as any Muslim could choose to convert to Christianity, Buddhism, etc. and not fear death. There are certainly countries that this is not the case. For instance, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Even the thought of other religions intruding on their bizarre utopias sends them into apoplectic fits.
So, how do we decide who is the enemy? Is it really Islam? Is it even realistic to claim the religion as a whole as an enemy of the United States? Of the free world?
It's not viable. And, frankly, that is exactly what the enemy desires. On the other hand, by practicing total hands off of the religion, we are allowing them to continue to recruit from an already indoctrinated mass that takes just a little pushing and pulling to put them in their camp. Although, by sheer numbers it is apparent that not ALL of the 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world believe that we are evil people that need to be destroyed. If they did, you can bet that we would be dead right now and not having this discussion. Believe me.
So, how do we decide who the enemy is? Is it really Islam? How do you defeat them if you cannot identify them? Is "terrorist" a good word?
I see that in order to defeat the enemy we must be able to identify them separately from the basic word "Muslim" and more specifically than the word "terrorist". It would be easier if they had identified borders and a government, but, aside from Afghanistan and the Taliban, the actual movement that attacked us has none.
We could make the arguments about Saudi Arabia and their fanatical religious government and Iran and it's fanatical religious government or even Syria with it's fanatical socialist government. All of these countries will have their comeuppence in due time. They cannot avoid it. The wheel is already set in motion. By their very make up, they have styled themselves either enemies of the United States or at least "obstructionist".
We could make the argument that we should go to war with them all. Today. But, by and large our enemy is first and foremost a "non-state actor". In other words, someone that does not represent any particular country, is not a recognized army (per the Geneva Conventions), is not governed by or controlled by a particular government although they may be receiving assistance from any number of governments to act as proxies. The enemy would seem to have these attributes:
I am 75% Good and 25% Evil
Well, I was floating at The Glob hosted by Frater Bovious and noticed a little blog test you can take by either puting your blog address in or pasting a passage from a posting.
In which case, it rates your passage based on the mathematical value of words, assigning each letter a value and then multiplying it by number of times it appears and other such equations.
According to the test, my blog is 75% Good and 25% Evil. Well, guess my halo can withstand that 25%.
It was an interesting test and will allow you to rate as many passages as you like. However, forewarning for those with long blogs like mine, it will not rate your blog if it is over 100kb. How do you know if your blog is over 100kb? If you posted any pictures, don't even try it.
Click on the title above to go rate your own blog.
Blue Skies
I came back from the Ozarks today. I went on Saturday to visit my dad. They drove me down and had to drive me back because I had a problem with my left eye and couldn't see or put my contacts in. Fortunately, it seems all better now, but, my dad had to drive me back, too. Two and one half hours both ways.
We were driving in their little car. I was riding in the back seat staring out at the scenery. It's beautiful this time of year. Still green and lush. The rolling hills with their never ending lines of green leafed trees. The road cutting through the hills and the bedrock exposed on either side and areas that are flatter, but still rolling, with fields of freshly mowed hay, or second planting soy beans or ripe corn, ready to be picked. The hills and fields are dotted with cattle and horses. The creeks and rivers are high. We've had a lot of rain this year. Not as much as some, but a bit.
And the sky, it's a beautiful cereleun blue with just a few whispy white clouds, touches the tops of the trees as far as the eye can see.
A bizarre thing happened. As I stared at the blue sky, a memory returned. I have posted a few times about 9/11. One thing that happened, after sitting home half the morning and listening to the news, I decided I needed to get into the office as we might need to implement our emergency plan for our more severe homebound patients. I got in the truck and started driving down I-35. I remember I was listening to NPR as they continued to relay the story. As I drove, I noticed the highway's were almost empty.
And the sky was a beautiful blue and only dissected by a few airplane contrails. Later I realized that these were the planes directed to land at our airport.
But it was a blue sky. It was beautiful and it looked like nothing evil could come from there.
I guess not.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
There Once Was a Place Called Camelot Men of Cornwall, Harlech and New York
There once was a place called Camelot...
Do you remember those lines? They are the opening lines of a play and then a movie. "There once was a place called Camelot." My thoughts in the inner sanctum.
As a teenager, I had a serious fascination with medieval history. Who am I kidding? I still do. But, as a teenager, the books tended toward the romantic mythical. You know? The knights all had shining armor. They were all good and noble and chivalrous (well, except for the evil blacknight, he was always lurking and in need of defeat). The women were beautiful, noble and virtuous (at 14, I was a little behind the curve on some things and "virtuous" always meant "honest", today, virtuous is funny) and in need of rescue.
When I got older and my reading materials tended towards biographies, non-fiction works, etc, I realized that the knights weren't always noble nor good, their armor wasn't always shining, the women were sometimes power hungry wenches and sometimes, just sometimes, the "black knight" had a good reason to be pissed and want the other guy's head on a pike or was bad simply because he came in on the wrong side of the political discussion or owed his allegiance to the guy on the short end of the stick.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the servants and the serfs. Somebody had to muck out the stables, cook the wild boar for 6 hours, sweep the reeds, care for the dogs and flush out the garde-robes. Nothing romantic about those jobs, right?
And the castles? I always thought of the castles as resembling something like Harlech Castle in Wales. With massive towers and walls. Even in my "romance" period, I never thought of them like "Cinderella" castles. Those kind of castles wouldn't do for the giant knights in my dreams. I didn't realize until later that sometimes these were not glamorous, massive stone structures, but a wooden manor behind wooden fences like this motte and bailey variety where the cattle often took residence with the "noble" inhabitants.
Even after learning all this, I eventually concluded that, regardless of the cold hard facts of a cold hard life in medieval times, there were still some "knights in shining armor" and the "code of chivalry" was an important part of our western heritage. Men like William Marshall who stood tall in the stirrups, knew how to give battle and when to offer surcease.
Are there men like William Marshall still running around today? Yes. We just don't always recognize them. They don't always wear armor and sometimes they don't always hold to the exact image of a noble man that always does noble deeds. In our 24/7 world, nobility and chivalry are hard illusions to maintain. The minute a hero is identified, they can be torn down. But we can dream can't we? Dream of Camelot?
The dream of Camelot is just that, a dream. A beautiful place where all is right and the table is round so that all men could sit down together and be equal. Equal in say. Equal in opportunity. Equal in the eyes of the king. Equal justice. Now I realize that this famous "equality" and dream of Camelot was only held together at the point of the sword and spear. These same men did not take their equality, their position lightly, but recognized there was evil in the world and injustices to be righted and they leant their strength and arms to the task. They had their little issues and petty in-fighting, but when Mordred came to knock on the door, they were one and ready to battle him.
Men of Cornwall, Harlech and New York
Today, like yesterday, our heroes are real men. They walk and talk and eat and fart and sing off key. They don't always pay their bills on time, don't always hold the door, some have been divorced three times and have to pay alimony and child support on three children. Sometimes, when they are tired or depressed or just because, they have one too many beers and get loud in the bar. They are not perfect.
But, there comes a day when the bell rings, the call comes down, the sirens go on and the engine's roar to life. Their armor is a badge, an insignia on a uniform, a baton or a fire ax for a sword. Their helms are yellow with a crest "Fire Station 1", a blue cap with a badge "To Protect and Serve", a khaki camouflaged foraging cap with a globe and eagle on the front "Semper Fi". And sometimes, they are dressed in business suits, with a bullhorn and a song, ushering their fellow men and women from burning buildings. Sometimes, they go to work and they don't come back. All that there is to remind us is a folded flag, the tolling of a bell, a picture on a shelf, a plaque on the wall or simply a memory that blurs around the edges.
Would that I could write a poem like the epic Song of Roland, who gave his life protecting his kings rearguard. A sword in one hand and his horn in another:
Then from the Franks resounded high—
“Montjoie!” Whoever had heard that cry
Would hold remembrance of chivalry.
Then ride they—how proudly, O God, they ride!—
With rowels dashed in their coursers’ side.
Fearless, too, are their paynim foes.
Frank and Saracen, thus they close. (...)
ROLAND feeleth his death is near,
His brain is oozing by either ear.
For his peers he prayed—God keep them well;
Invoked the angel Gabriel.
That none reproach him, his horn he clasped;
His other hand Durindana grasped;
And, Roland gives his life, refusing to call for his king although asked repeatedly to do so by his companion Olivier, who near begs him to blow his horn and let the King know they are under attack. Some interpret that as pride, but I think it has a basic theme. Roland must know that the Saracens outnumber them tremendously. If he calls for the King to return, he might be slaughtered along with the rearguard. If he stands and fights, he may buy the King some time to be further on out of the Saracens' range.
And there are other stories like Roland. Some closer in history. Such as the Irish Brigade at Fredricksburg who stood in the face of withering fire so daunting that more than half their brigade was slaughtered on the field and as they finally turned to march from the field, the confederate army gave them "huzzahs" for their unmitigated bravery. Or, the men at Rorke's Drift when 150 British Soldiers held off 4000 Zulu or Rick Rescorla in the south tower or the hundreds of stories we don't hear every day as our men and women fight in a hot sandy country far away.
After I posted my 9/11 remembrance where I included the story of Rick Rescorla where he was singing a song from the movie Zulu as he ushered people out of the burning and collapsing building, a gentleman reader read my post and sent me some information on the true story of Rorke's Drift (spelling corrected) and the song they were singing:
With reference to your September 11 blog, I note you make reference to the battle at Rorke’s Drift.
I hate to be picky but the lyrics that you quoted are slightly incorrect. They are from the film version of the song Men of Harlech, a battle hymn of the Welsh nation and its unofficial national anthem. The Film Zulu to which you refer commemorates the action at Rorke's Drift (South Africa), Wednesday 22- Thursday 23 January, 1879, when some 150 soldiers (139 of them Welsh) defended a supply station against some 4000 Zulus. At Rorke's Drift, eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded. Seven to the 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot, one to the Army Medical Department, one to the Royal Engineers, one to the Commissariat and Transport Department and one to the Natal Native Contingent. The primary regiments (in terms of manpower) engaged were 1st and 2nd Battalions, 24th (Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot (Infantry). This regiments recruiting area at the time resulted in a majority of its serving soldiers being Welsh, and as such upheld a number of Welsh social customs as part of its regimental identity. The soldiers, given their origins, would have known by heart the verses of Men of Harlech, fed as it was to them with their mother’s milk (to use an old clicheé).
An interesting stereotype concerning the people of Wales is that they all have good singing voices. Though not absolutely true, there is a distinct basis for this characterization. Should you ever watch a Rugby International played in Wales involving the Welsh national team, you will be witness to something astonishing: 60,000 or so Welsh (mainly male) voices singing in harmony and time without the aid of a choirmaster. It can best be described as a melodic roar, that is as intimidating as hell. Various rugby players of other countries have said that it is worth an extra 2 men on the field – given the state of Welsh rugby at moment, the help is necessary.
As for the song, it was written to commemorate the 15th century defense of Harlech Castle. There are two versions in English, one written in 1861 the other in 1873, both being translations from Welsh. The lyrics used in the film were rewritten specifically for the purpose. The correct film version is below.
Men of Harlech stop your dreaming;
Can't you see their spearpoints gleaming?
See their warriors' pennants streaming
To this battlefield.
Men of Harlech stand ye steady;
It cannot be ever said ye
for the battle were not ready;
Stand and never yield!
On a return email, I was discussing the movie with him and remembered that the soldiers had sang another song, but could not remember it as well as the song posted above. The gentleman sent me another note:
Having read your blog, I then did a quick bit of research on Rick Rescorla. From what I read, he was a remarkable man, who is both an example and a hero for our times. Obviously, he was someone for whom the idea of duty and responsibility were not outmoded concepts otherwise why would he have re-entered a fatally damaged building to look for missing staff and to help the evacuation of others. Like an old war horse, someone who charged towards the sound of the guns rather than away. His like are sorely missed and sorely needed. (...)
(...)As for the film Zulu, I believe the other song that was sung was "Land of my Fathers" another Welsh anthem. According to the film and the official history of the battle, the soldiers singing was in response to the Zulus singing one of their battle songs promising swift death to their enemies. It was done probably to raise the morale of men facing what should have been certain death. The Zulus obviously outnumbered them, and a simple war of attrition should have seen them annihilated. However, it is believed that the Zulus called off the siege out of respect for their courage, not because the British had managed to defeat them. There was then a code of chivalry amongst the Zulu nation that was in part to blame for their being overcome by the European invaders.
Thank you, Bill, for the information.
You see, there are heroes. They fight against incredible odds. They stand when we would run. They sing in the face of overwhelming odds. They live next door or right down the hall. Sometimes they are our grandfathers, fathers, uncles, brothers or husbands. Sometimes, they are our grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters and wives.
Sometimes, they are just ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances who got up one day, put on their clothes, drank a cup of coffee and went to work. Doing what they always do.
There IS a place called Camelot and it resides in the best of us every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
