From our "no kidding" department and Newswise, with thanks to LS.
Jihadis place a great deal of emphasis on developing comprehensive public relations and communication strategies to aid their side in the media war. That’s according to communication researchers at Arizona State University who studied recently declassified al-Qaida documents and other open source reports captured in Iraq and Afghanistan during U.S. military operations.“Their strategies are crafted after careful audience analysis and message adaptation, two of the most fundamental rules underlying any communication or public relations campaign,” write the authors of a report released this week titled: “Communication and Media Strategy in the Jihadi War of Ideas.” Contributing to the report are faculty members and graduate students in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication in ASU’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
Professor Steven Corman, who co-authored the report with graduate student Jill Schiefelbein, says that in his experience “people are surprised the jihadis think of media as a weapon.”
Yet, by using text analysis techniques to review nearly 300 documents, some recently released from the Department of Defense’s HARMONY database, the researchers concluded that jihadis place a great importance on media and public relations as part of their overall strategy.
“Their strategy is not hard to discern,” Corman says. “All you have to do is listen to what they say and what they worry about.”...
“During the Cold War, America had a robust academic effort to better understand the communist ideology. We are not seeing a parallel research effort today. Scholars have been hesitant to engage in this conversation, in part because this is such a politically charged topic, and, in part because they’ve lacked access to data,” says Jarret Brachman, [an assistant professor and director of research at the center. The Combating Terrorism Center is a Department of Defense entity, housed at West Point].
“ASU’s work in this area will hopefully catalyze more academic institutions to undertake similar research,” he says, “helping us to better understand and combat the radical ideology we face today.”...
May I humbly point to our Jihad Watch data base as a place to start?
Question to the Prof
What gave it away? al-Jazeera?
Proves that the jihadis have a BAD IMAGE problem.
It is stunning and depressing that there has not been academic research into the Jihadist mentality. What will it take? The flabbiness of our academia is part of the problem, but also the self-delusion of our leaders. How many people have to die before it is not politically suicidal to make the connection to the canonical texts of Islam? The only way is for people like us, Jihad-aware who understand how the religion itself creates the problem, to spread the word, one person at a time.
The DFs at CAIR use the media too for their agenda.
"It is stunning and depressing that there has not been academic research into the Jihadist mentality. What will it take?"
One pitifully meager silver lining to all this is that there will very likely come a time (sooner one hopes rather than later) when most of those who are now blind will finally admit how wrong they were, and we will be able to say with supremely satisfactory validation: "We told you so." That such a validation will likely have to come at the price of untold misery and mayhem is a terrible prospect; but the least we can do on that day is rub their faces in it.
“During the Cold War, America had a robust academic effort to better understand the communist ideology. We are not seeing a parallel research effort today. Scholars have been hesitant to engage in this conversation, in part because this is such a politically charged topic..."
This is political football. No politician wants to touch the issue of Islam. It is career suicide. CNN would be all over it branding him/her a racist when, as we know, Islam has nothing to do with race. Sadly, politicians place their own political survival ahead of their nation's survival. How unpatriotic.
Since most academics are liberal minded, the men and women making decisions are having their views skewed from their liberal advisors.
“Their strategies are crafted after careful audience analysis and message adaptation, two of the most fundamental rules underlying any communication or public relations campaign..”
-- from the article above
For god's sake, why is this a surprise? Soon after the defeat in the Six-Day War, the Arabs regrouped, after their "Three No's" at Khartoum, and set to work deciding how, in what the had finally realized would be a long campaign, one that required constantly chipping away at the diplomatic and other support the Israelis had been receiving, in order to isolate Israel and of course to depict it as the villain. And so the "Palestinian people" were born -- a phrase not used about the local Arabs in Gaza, or the "West Bank," not once, in any of the tens of thousands of speeches, articles, books, by a single Arab, anywhere in the world, until after that defeat in 1967. The phrase "Palestinian" Arab people, with the word "Palestinian" being, as it is, a geographical modifier, like "Saudi" Arab or "Iraqi" Arab or "Egyptian" Arab, and not the description of a separate people. No, far from it; the "Palestinian" Arab leaders produced a document that keeps emphasizing that they are part of the great Arab nation, that they are Arabs, etc. etc.
This was one of the greatest propagandistic feats of the modern world, and it helped to disguise, through re-packaging, the Arab Muslim Jihad against Israel as merely a matter of the "legitimate rights of the (recently-invented) Palestinian people." Come to think of it,who could be against "legitimate rights" for anyone? It's only those illegitimate rights we object to, isn't it?
And Israelis, both lazy and foolish, just like the of the world, began to use the phrase "Palestinian people." They knew, of course, that these were merely "the Arabs." And they talked at home about "Arabs" and "Jews." But the word "Palestian" as in "we want to negotiate with the 'Palestinians'" or "we must find out what the 'Palestiinians' want from these discussions" or even "we don't think the
'Palestinians' have been helpful with these attacks" -- every time some unthinking Israeli uttered these phrases, he was lending weight and more weight and more weight to the idea that there were these people, called the "Palestinians," and that therefore they had a separate identity, though in what that separate identity consisted -- language, no; religion, no; fairy tales, no; culture, no; proclation that they were a separate people and not just a succursale of the Arab People's Bank, no. And so it went.
All those stupid Israelis had to do, all they had to do, was never give in on the language. All they had to do was to keep referring to the "Palestinian Arabs." The "Palestinian Arabs." But they were too lazy. Two extra syllables. Just too much. Too much to fit onto a newspaper headline. So "Palestinians" as a reduction of "Palestinian people" it became.
And they lost, those Israelis. Lost their own understanding of what it was that promopted the unremitting siege being laid against them.
And something else happened. The Europeans, who if they had been able to stand by Israel, and not abandon it, as so many clearly have, would have been better able to understand not only the nature of the Arab Muslim opposition to Israel as a classic Jihad (what I call the Lesser JIhad) but also have looked more closely into Islam, and in doing so, have been far more wary and vigilant about Muslim migrants in Europe. In other words, the successful seizure of the language by the Arabs and Muslims, aided by the Israeli inability to understand quite what was happening and to see how important it was to halt its advance. The failure of younger Israelis to pay keen attention to lanaguge may reflect that deliberate attitude -- almost a shtick -- of the gruff but gentle, no-nonsense I'm-a-Sabra business (because all that delicacy and fineness of discrimination hadn't quite done the trick for Jewish art historians and physicists in Berlin, in Vienna, in Budapest or Prague or Bucharest, so why not be deliberately undelicate, and inattentive to language, thinking that it was not a major matter because, after all, what were mere words -- and that is how Israel Lost the Language War, and Hence the Diplomatic War).
The palpable want of sympathy that Israelis discovered in Europe only reinforced their need to be yielding, compromising, full of talk about peace, and with no desire to rock any boats or make negotiations more difficult by daring, for example, by refusing to go along with this "Palestinian people" business and the need for a "state" and all the rest of it. One would have had to have a very clear sense of things, an almost superhuman self-assurance, really, to be able to ignore what everyone else "knew" to be true: that there was this "Palestinian pepole" and ultimately there could, of course, be a "compromise," and it was only a question of modalities and parameters and words like that.
When the Arabs captured the language and held it hostage, they won a great victory. That victory can be undone, as all victories through manipulation of language can be undone, merely by discontinuing to collaborate, by employing, the language of the enemy. Don't use the term "Palestinian people." Don't unwittingly promote the averting of eyes from the Lesser Jihad (properly identified) or from the Greater Jihad. It is not merely the "Palestinians" involved in the Lesser Jihad. It is all the Arabs. It is most of the Muslim world -- and how could it be otherwise?
Seize the language for Infidel purposes. The payments we make, for no good reason, and which are received with not the slightest gratitude, by Arabs and Muslims, should properly be callled not "foreign aid" but Jizyah. Call it Jizyah. Get it called Jizyah in the press. Have members of Congress call, in Congress, for an end to the payment of Jizyah.
That's the kind of thing that needs to be done.
They lie when they make up such phrases as the "Palestinian people" or talk about "neocolonialism" when the imperialist Arabs inflict their cultural, linguistic, and political imperialism, through the vehicle of Islam, everywhere they can. And yet many in the West, lazy or unvigilant, simply repeat those Arab-coined phrases, and do the work of those who would subjugate them, if they could -- or worse.
And we tell the truth when we describe that $60 billion in American taxpayers' money sent to Egypt, those billions given to the "Palestinians," those other billions given to meretricious Pakistan, Jordan full of people who proudly proclaim how much they hate -- not dislike, hate -- Americans. "And yet the Americans and the Europeans are afraid to cut this foreign aid. In other words, that aid, which we are afraid to stop giving for fear that the recipients, who already are hostile to us and have not become one whit less hostile, will punish us if we cut off such aid.
That is the classic definition of Jizyah.
Seize the language back. And if the Admministration can't do it, make it contract work. Give it those who have proved themselves.
You know my email address. And you know that I'm looking for work. I'll be fair. Merely pay me what all those solemn layabouts in the think-tanks get (you know - the anthony-cordesmanish portentous ones). No, on second thought, I'd rather get what all those "consultants" on thisorthat, soaking the Pentagon for all it is foolishly worth, as they produce their work on the "War on Terror."
Yes, I'm worth it. And you can start by letting everyone in the damned governement know that they should stop using that phrase "war on terror." It is more than idiotic. It is damaging. Just like that idiotic, and damaging phrase the Israelis have no problem with -- the "Palestinian people."
What are you reading, Hamlet?
Words, words, words.
Of course he was. Not crazy, but crazy like a fox. No fool, that Hamlet. He merely put an antic disposition on.
“ASU’s work in this area will hopefully catalyze more academic institutions to undertake similar research,” he says, “helping us to better understand and combat the radical ideology we face today.”
I say go for it, ASU! Who knows, your work may inspire some of the podunk colleges (such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton) to follow your lead.
OT, but related: I don't get Fox News Radio, so I'm unaware about Tony Snow's views on Islam. Robert, since you've appeared on his shows on a few occasions, do you happen to know? Question here is - would Tony Snow's elevation to White House Press Secretary introduce an element of enlightenment to the White House on Islam, when currently they seem to be too dependent on the Espositoes and the Armstrongs for their views on Islam?
Yeah, I know that this job means that Tony Snow will be telling the White House Press Corpse (David Gregory, Helen Thomas, et al) about the Administration's viewpoints, but doesn't he also get to feed in his own inputs to the White House staff?
I hope he lasts for the balance of Bush's term.
P.S. Since Tony once called Robert an "Islamist" scholar, is it fair to assume that he's more anti-Islamic than even most of us on this site? ;->
Gee Whizz! And to think our MSM is so gullible (complicit?) that they can’t figure out (or don’t want to admit) that the Jihadists are using basic media public relations tools to sell their ideology (propaganda). There is nothing like being played for a sucker and failing to admit it. I really wonder who has more false pride, the Jihadists or the MSM?
It's amazing how the intelligencia love to act like blogs such as Jihad Watch do not exist -- as if they all suddenly have these epiphanies on their own and for the first time anywhere and they must start chit-chatting about it in coffee houses.
Intellectual hubris might very well spell disaster for the West. We aren't fighting rocket scientists -- we are fighting zealots. Zealots can kill with spoons if they have to and they'll do it to you in your sleep, while too many of our "elite thinkers" sit back and hymn and haw and read the Wallstreet Journal or the NY Times over tea and coffee and wonder how to understand the "barbarians" and the "downtrodden" Muslim, meanwhile never really seeing that "spoon" being aimed at the back of their cranium.
First things first just who are the enemies and why do they want to take control of our media and have they already done so?
http://www.afsi.org/MEDIA/reasonforbias.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/06/alwaleed-murdoch-billionaires-cx_gl_0906autofacescan02.html
Whom do you believe I realise the below has links to white power but not of all of it can be a lie could it?
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/index.html
I have no clue anymore what and whom to believe now there are enough credible links to suggest the USofA has a hand in the latest round of Jihadist violence.
http://emperors-clothes.com/
http://www.infowars.com
All I do know is that I loath anything remotely propping up Islam, the Koran and Muslims in general to include anyone justifying the actions of the animals chopping heads off and blowing up women and children all over the world.
Keep up the dialog and information.
Comments anyone?
The more that I read http://emperors-clothes.com the more I understand that the people behind it are hurting and suffering, but that does not make the rational. Much of what is on that site is completely without merit and if you look for evidence you usually have to literally pay to have it. That's not what I call honest debate. That's profiteering.
As for the conspiracy theories that the U.S. government or Israel are behind some of the "jihad", I can't honestly say that I know for a fact that that is false, but I can say that I have zero (0) evidence that anything like that is true.
You do the math.
Islam does a fine job of creating its own murderous thugs. I hardly think anyone would have to conspire to clone that instinct.
By George, I think he's got it! I started reading what was available in the public domain in the late 1990's. I quickly realized all the "root causes" analysis I was hearing on TV was complete bunk and would only encourage more terrorism.
The only way to deal with these people is harshly. When their Muslim spokesmen fighting the media jihad get air time they should be asked pointed questions about the Qur'an, citing specific passages (Sura Nine especiallly). There are so many unasked questions.
How do we think Islam is going to change? Osmosis isn't working. At least make them come up with better lies. I'm tired of hearing the same ones over and over.
"I'm not violent and I'm a Muslim."
"That's not real Islam."
"It's because the Jews haven't withdrawn to the 1949 Armastice line."
"He was so peaceful and religious. There's no way he could have become a suicide bomber."
And it's time to bring Islam's expansion from the Seventh Century on back into the historical record. We can learn so much from the strategies in those days, which haven't changed except in technology - western technology.
You know, Spencer's "department" jokes are usualy the first thing to make me smile when I wake up.
Hugh - your 2:11 post was really terrific. Hoping that it will appear as a main post on the morrow (who am I kidding? Of course it will:-)), the little grammarian in me cannot help but point out 3 paragraphs that need your attention. I've added in bold some tiny words as rough approximations of words which were seemingly omitted but which are needed to make the sentences grammatical:
“every time some unthinking Israeli uttered these phrases, he was lending weight and more weight and more weight to the idea that there were these people, called the "Palestinians," and that therefore they had a separate identity, though in what that separate identity consisted isn't clear? -- language, no; religion, no; fairy tales, no; culture, no; proclation that they were a separate people and not just a succursale of the Arab People's Bank, no. And so it went.”
“In other words, the successful seizure of the language by the Arabs and Muslims, aided by the Israeli inability to understand quite what was happening and to see how important it was to halt its advance, has had serious ramifications for the Europeans as well?.”
“No, on second thought, I'd rather get what all those "consultants" on thisorthat, soaking the Pentagon for all it is foolishly worth, as they produce their work on the "War on Terror, get? rake in?"”
I mean no disrespect. And if you would prefer I not point this sort of thing out even though I realize that your post will not just be buried in the archives but will appear as a main post and so I feel the compulsion to straighten it's tie, so to speak, before it steps out onto the red carpet, please say so and I will refrain from doing it again.
"needed to make the sentences grammatical:..."
-- from a vigilant female poster above
Possible replies:
1. Grammar? What's that?
2. I don't need no stinkin' grammar.
3. Thank you, darling. We can't go on not meeting like this.
I like #3 myself.
Thank you Hugh. By the way, terrific tie. :-)
(I should have said "you're welcome" rather than "thank you". I was thanking you for not being offended by my post.)
Under the Biltmore clock? May 12? 4 p.m.?
Hugh - I'm a total product of my generation (born within several weeks of 1960). My film awareness (skipping over GWTW, The Red Balloon, The Sound of Music, and Finian's Rainbow) basically begins with The Graduate. When you mention the Biltmore at a certain time and place, I think of Sleepless in Seattle - with a bit of Hannibal thrown in! But mostly I am reminded of the fact that my poor old Mom (whom I induced to move here to the Raleigh-Durham area to escape the high living costs of D.C) has always wanted to see the Biltmore Estate (having seen many of the great castles in Europe in her day) and never having seen the Biltmore myself, I keep promising her - yes, next Spring, we will go see the Biltmore Estate. It's been an empty promise for many years. So yes, come to think of it, the Biltmore on May 12th at 4:00 sounds terrific. It'll be me and Mom. (You can't expect me to explain to her somehow that I saw the place and didn't take her along, now can you?). Which, to make a long story short, basically means, careful what you wish for :-)
The Biltmore I was referring to is the Biltmore Hotel in New York, the subject of a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The Biltmore Estate, to which you refer, and under which you suggest you might be able to meet me at on May 12 at 4 p.m., is, alas, in Asheville, North Carolina. But, and this is a curious little item, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda lived in 1936 and 1937, but naturally did not have to rendezvous under clocks.
Now think if I had not caught that "Biltmore Estate" (as my not catching some anacolutha slithering through the grass here in the Upper Amazon led to your spotting them above) and I, in turn, had showed up on May 12 at 4 p.m. in fabled New York, and stood there under that storied Biltmore clock. And at the same Eastern Standard Time, on the same day, you would have been standing under the biggest clock at the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, in western North Carolina.
And neither would have known of the mistake each had made. And we would stand there, each of us remembering another movie, where someone is waiting for someone else (Cary Grant for Deborah Kerr) who never shows, because she has had an accident, and so he waits, and waits, on the 102nd floor of the Empire State Building, and then finally leaves. A movie made, incidentally, three years before you were born.
Who wants to stand in New York waiting under the Biltmore Clock, while the person who has agreed to meet you is waiting innocently under another Biltmore clock in Asheville, North Carolina. Yes, I know -- all the lawyers who come to this site are now dimly remembering First Year Contracts, and "Mistake as an Excuse," and that famous case of the two ships "Peerless" both leaving Bombay. Well, all I can say to those lawyers all over the Anglo-American legal world is: You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, for thinking of something like that smack in the middle of this romantic scene. Go back to your causes of action, and leave us alone.
Think of that conceivable scene, with its cinematic possibilities. (Yes, it would start with bloggers, and proceed from there. Writers Guild: take note that this idea has hereby been copyrighted in all countries).
Now that we both realize, well in advance, that there are two Biltmores, and two Biltmore clocks, one in New York and one in Asheville, a thousand miles or more apart, we will not make the mistake those chosen to play us in the movie version will, according to the script I have just sketched out, have to make.
One may be all for repeating in real life a famous scene from "An Affair to Remember." But only if one has first had the consolation of having had that affair (the one to remember) -- in the first place.
"But only if one has first had the consolation of having had that affair (the one to remember) -- in the first place."
Well, the word "affair" has a different meaning to those of my generation (born after the film as you point out) and "consolation" isn't the first word that comes to mind.:-)
But the phrase "two stars crossing in the night" does come to mind, even though a quick google search reveals no such phrase so I'm not sure why it comes to mind and from where it came (the google search thing was supposed to be ironic). But as you point out, we are bloggers. And I think the lesson here is that blogging has evidently prevented the kind of romantic tragedy of the sort that ensued in "An Affair to Remember" (I did mean that tongue in cheek in case there was some doubt). I suppose that's a good thing, sort of. But it's a distinct possibility that my Mom would disagree. I think she would have thoroughly enjoyed waiting under the Asheville Biltmore clock on May 12 at 4pm for you to show up, even if you never did. It would have made her much anticipated trip to the Biltmore Estate that much more memorable. And we both would have had quite the story to tell. :-)
But alas, it's not to be. Noone loves romance stories more than me (or my Mom:-). (I'm even a sucker for the darned books. Flame me. I don't care). But there's a darned jihad on. Which come to think of it means that it's probably not that far fetched to imagine a day in the not too distant future when young American men and women of the western "resistance" might NOT actually rendezvous at the Biltmore clock (whether in NY or NC) at a certain date and time to plot, well, the resistance! And who knows what romantic possibilities might ensue among westerners in that "underground"? I'll have to leave it to someone younger than me to write those romance stories. There's gonna be a whole lot of them though - of that I'm pretty sure.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, I think I'm in love with Hugh. His wit, his wisdom, his perorations ... what is a young, gay man supposed to do?
Don't worry! I'll get over it. At least he's more readable than James - and he makes more sense.
Seriously, though; this is the problem that we face in our free society. The media is a two edged sword. A good reporter will always report the enemy's argument, in what we hope will be an unbiased way, as well as ours. Because we live in a free society we probably have an uphill struggle to get our message across. This site is a counter-irritant at worst and a source of truth at best.
Hugh, be not disheartened. We all spread the arguments which you expound so succintly, and language is a serious tool and, in my opinion (for what it is worth), you are an excellent exponent of the use of language. I wish that I had your talent in the use of words. Of course, Caroline is correct - a little proof-reading never goes amiss, unless it gets in the way of passion. I prefer your passion over accuracy!
Good grief, I think that I have just praised an American writer. Whatever next!
You will notice that I am paying attention to my punctuation. My eldest brother took me to task for not doing so, so I will be good for a few days until he stops looking. (So there, Henry, I can do it when I try - get out of my face, now.)
BTW, what's the Biltmore clock? Is it like under the clock at Victoria? (See Henry, I even know how to use question marks. Ya-boo-sucks!)
Dominic.
Oops, I should have read all the posts first. Thank-you Hugh even though I don't quite understand the Biltmore clock thing.
I have a friend in Scotland who tells me that The Scotsman newspaper (a national daily broadsheet, over here) had, for many years, a column ostensibly written by F. Scott Monument! I'm sure that you get the reference even if you have never been to Edinburgh and walked along Princes' Street.
(See Henry, I even remembered to punctuate "Princes' Street" correctly. Smoke it, bro.)
Dominic.
Domninic: "A good reporter will always report the enemy's argument, in what we hope will be an unbiased way, as well as ours."
I'm not sure that an American reporter shouldn't actually report our POV in a way that is biased towards us. Don't we already have the enemys' reporters reporting the enemy's POV in a biased way? If our own reporters take a completely neutral stance doesn't that make it basically 3 to 1 against our POV (us split between us and them while they are them and them - making 3 them's and 1 us)?.
So while I agree that our reporters should report the other side as well as our side, I think they should show bias towards our side, merely to combat the bias of the other side in a case like this war, in which the other side has zero interest in taking a neutral stand.
From The City Review's article on the Waldorf-Astoria (closest I could find):
http://www.thecityreview.com/waldorf.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Biltmore_Hotel
Dear Caroline,
I am shedding tears. Give me the final scene. It's always the diva who has the final scene. I envision you standing - lonely and deserted on the platform of some small-town railway station (at night, of course - cut to grainy black and white) whilst the mournful tones of the great AmTrack goods trains are heard over a background of fat orchestral music, probably Mahler (God speaking to Man);in the distance there is lightening and a fine rain is falling on you and slowly turning your carefully arranged hair and superbly applied make-up to ruin. Tears, needless to say, are coursing down your cheeks. As some sort of visual side-bar we see Hugh living it up with his chums in the Algonquin and flirting with a woman who resembles Tallulah. We know, at that moment, that he has missed his only chance for happiness with the woman in the world who could satisfy him without destroying his muse. Very Hemmingway!
Dominic.
the great AmTrack goods trains are heard over a background of fat orchestral music, probably Mahler - Dominic
For the era of film we seem to be talking about, how about some Erich Korngold? (The guy who did the score for The Sea Hawk, among other things).
Dear Caroline,
I hadn't thought of it that way, but I see, and take, your point. Of course our reporters should aim for a bias in our direction. Reporters also have a right to make value judgements and should, had they read this site, have no difficulty in doing so.
(See bro, even the sub-clauses are punctuated. Stop 'phoning!)
Dominic.
Dear Shinoliite,
Of course, of course. He would do the music perfectly. Mahler approved of him, I think, and he studied under Zemlinski (Zemlinsky?). But we also have to remember that he wrote the March of the Merry Men. Aaaargh.
Dominic.
I just Googled Korngold. He died in 1957. Years before I was born! Sometimes one just feels cheated!
(Henry - note the correct use of 'one'. Read it and weep, sibling of mine.)
Dominic.
Dominic - Indeed, Mahler was quite impressed with young Korngold, though once the latter had success in Hollywood, he had a hard time being taken as seriously by the "legit" composers back in Germany.
Getting back to the scene you paint above, and composers of highly chromatic music of a late- Romantic style, that ending just begs for an additional bit in the film score: The "Hugh" leitmotif.
PS - Don't feel bad, Dominic. Korngold's death preceded me by 22 years. On the bright side, my birth heralded the end of disco, and the Carter administration. Or so I like to think.
Dear Shinoliite,
I was born in 1982, twenty-five years after his death. I keep having these cheated feelings - such as when I realised that I had missed seeing the Parthenon intact by a scant century or so (and realising that one of my countrymen caused the destruction by shelling the Ottoman armoury).
OK, it's nothing, really, compared with the what we are facing, but really, thousands of years and then I miss it by a hundred or so. Like how unfair is that! However, I had some consolation 'coz I had a perfect week-end at Delphi. Stood by the Omphalos in a perfect October day. If ever there was a somewhere that had a spirit of place! It's not dead, it's just asleep - like Sounion.
God, what we could lose if we're not careful.
Dominic.
what we could lose if we're not careful.
Amen to that.
Dear Shinoliite,
You're simple Amen to that really brought it home to me. I hadn't realised the true depth of what I had said. They really want to destroy everything, don't they? Including the whimsy between Hugh and Caroline, and between you and me which all four of us posted above. They just don't rate our culture at all, do they?
Got to go to bed. Working tomorrow - on lates, thank goodness. Have a good day, everyone. Bless you all.
Dominic.
"There is no whimsy in Islam."
-Ayatollah Yuso.
And no malmsy, either.
Just the vats.
(& vats all, folks.)
Of course the jihaddists like to use the media in accordance with scriptural instructions to strike fear in the hearst of the enemy. On the other hand, bin Laden wants to banish TVs from the Umma. I guess he's worried that the Umma might get the wrong idea about how evil bin Laden and his ilk are and how much better life is outside the Umma.
Does anyone have any info about Tony Snow, the new press secretary and his viewpoints on this war on terror and Islam?
Thanks ahead for your responses.
Caroline,
Could the phrase "star-crossed lovers", usually alluding to Romeo and Juliet, be the source of your mental image? :-)
Abscedere - "star-crossed lovers". Yes, you're right. Shakespeare it is. But my obvious literary (and general cultural) ignorance, as compared with Hugh's obvious erudition, suggests the potential for a match made not in heaven (and thwarted by the stars) but rather a match made "below ground", as it were, in which case these immortal words of Garth Brooks are quite possibly more apropos than the words of the bard:
"Some of God's greatest gifts... are unanswered prayers." :-)
Our solution? Detonate Electro Magnetic Pulse weapons over the Islamic countries' air spaces' ASAP. That WILL put an end to much of this aspect of global jihad sooner rather than later. Iran would be our favored candidate for this treatment at the moment.