Long ago in the mists of ages, warrior societies learned that terror won wars. Thus villages and other communities were destroyed and anything and everything there became the proverbial 'spoils of war' including children for slaves and women for wives or whores. The victims were not given choices. Appealing to the captor, a captive woman became perhaps a wife; so-so, a mistress whore; indifferently sexy, bound for a whore house; homely, a mere slave. To the Comanche, the same choices existed, carried out ever so much more roughly and ruggedly; and the resulting life was ever so much harder for the victim. Children were killed or, if old enough to be self sufficient, taken as slaves, or girls, taken for future wives.
We've grown and evolved. And yet Sherman burned a swath through Georgia and cut the South apart to achieve victory, and the U.S. Army knew that the buffalo hunters were helping them do their work of defeating the prairie tribes by eliminating the animal that supplied everything those natives needed.
In the modern era, during the greatest of conflicts, World War II, with an unquestionable moral justification to it, the Allies learned that the people of their enemies supported their governments and were thus fair targets. The Allies and everybody's favorite historical target, the Americans, perpetrated serious bombing raids on Dresden and Hamburg that rivaled or surpassed the later Nuclear attacks on Japan. When Army Aircorps strategists learned that Japanese homes were made of paper, they fire bombed Japanese cities. When Japan did not surrender when it was clear that hey were a beaten nation, the nuclear bombs were employed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The political left has criticized the argument that those bombs saved lives. I for one believe they did. What America and her allies did know for sure was that the people of Japan were very dedicated to their country and to their emperor, who at that time was considered to be a god. A tremendous resistance to an Allied invasion was expected that would involve the masses of the Japanese common people. Many Allied fighters' and Japanese lives would have been lost. Similarly, at the time of the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden, the Germans were thought to be fanatically behind their evil leadership.
In the more modern era, the world faces similar fanatical enemies, both those following religious beliefs and those perpetrating the drug and human trafficking trades. We have newer more efficient weaponry and more specific targeting techniques and technology. We know as well that often times the places where the enemies hide are peopled by their supporters and, at other times, the local populace is nearly held hostage. But modern intelligence is much better now as well.
We learned that well planned massive attacks win wars, even those against civilian populations that support evil and the perpetrators of evil. We learned that lesson and, within a politically correct era, we forgot it. We know now how better to discern who is innocent and who is not. who is hostage and who is a complicit supporter of evil. And we face great evil. The strategic and tactical goals should involve studying the collective lessons of military history and tactics, both old and new, and wedding them together for a greater and somewhat kinder,more moral modern warfare, but one that does not shrink for risks and does not fail.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Skimming the Surface of the History of Fighting Islam
A certain female presidential candidate was heard to say that we do not need to profile people who could be our enemies, possible members of groups that are our enemies. Another candidate from the same political party was heard to say that we are not at war with a religion but with a radical arm of it or radical people who believe in that religion and are perverting it. All of these statements carry truth in them.
These statements are perhaps mostly true, and yet . . . . Islamic teaching seems to echo the negative principles that the radicals follow, without the caveat that the Christians have of an older time that has been changed by a watershed event. The Muslim cannot say, as the Christian does: Our laws were brutal in older times (Old Testament times) until the Savior came to pay for our wrongs and eliminate such harsh justice by man. Islam has no similar switch in it's harsh teachings; and, though it recognizes the historical figure, Jesus, it considers belief in Christ the Redeemer a sin.. Other modern hints seem to reveal occasional, or more than just occasional, agreement between radical Islamic teaching and the general beliefs of the average Muslim.
We don't know. And that's the bottom line. We don't know how much we hear is true, but we do know that the old saying 'where there's smoke there's fire' is based upon decades of observation. Today, in this modern ever so sensitive world, people are getting killed for their beliefs around the world in very brutal ways, while slavery also exists among Arabs, and subjugation of women in modern times is institutionalized. Those are facts. Another fact is that Christians and Muslims have been fighting almost nonstop through the ages since Islam first assaulted Christians in the early beginnings of the Islamic faith.
First, the modern, politically correct narrative has taught wrongly that the Christian Crusaders were the aggressors in their wars against Islam. In fact, as Islam grew and spread itself by the sword (a blame generally lain on Christians), Muslims conquered Christian lands in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, more or less completely conquering Spain except for a small hold out area. These Christian lands were not stolen from the Arabs. Christianity began in those lands. It seems there had been tolerance and some assurances of safety to those Christians by Muslim leaders. The failure of such safety precipitated the earliest crusades. Application by moderns of their modern standards to brutal historical times and the warriors who fought then have caused another mischaracterization of the Crusades. Yes their warriors were brutal, everybody's warriors were brutal then.
Long after the Crusades, Spain freed itself only to sail across the world to settle the Philippines with a strong Muslim presence in its southern regions. Having fought the Muslim Moors at home for 800 years, Spaniards called the Filipino Muslims 'Moros' (Spanish for Moors). Spain fought the warlike Moros; America took the Philippines in the Spanish American War in 1898 and fought them from around 1902 onward. Peace was achieved and after Philippine Independence the Filipinos have fought them off and on ever since. Radicals within the Moros are now part of the worldwide terror network, and they have taken tourist captive off and on in the area.
Additional facts that are generally known but little reported are that several Islamist groups and Muslim nations do not recognize Israel and do not want it to exist. Israel is located in its ancestral lands and was reestablished there in modern times when there was no other established nation present in the area. Perhaps the British occupation at the time had prevented such a Palestinian nation; and perhaps when Israel was thus founded there in 1947 after World War II, wise leadership could have divided the land and formed two nations at the time. It did not happen, but the Palestinians do have Jordan.
As to profiling and whether we are fighting a whole religion, questions brought up at the beginning of this essay, and I have no definitive answers for, we will address them in future essays. I have some suggested answers.
These statements are perhaps mostly true, and yet . . . . Islamic teaching seems to echo the negative principles that the radicals follow, without the caveat that the Christians have of an older time that has been changed by a watershed event. The Muslim cannot say, as the Christian does: Our laws were brutal in older times (Old Testament times) until the Savior came to pay for our wrongs and eliminate such harsh justice by man. Islam has no similar switch in it's harsh teachings; and, though it recognizes the historical figure, Jesus, it considers belief in Christ the Redeemer a sin.. Other modern hints seem to reveal occasional, or more than just occasional, agreement between radical Islamic teaching and the general beliefs of the average Muslim.
We don't know. And that's the bottom line. We don't know how much we hear is true, but we do know that the old saying 'where there's smoke there's fire' is based upon decades of observation. Today, in this modern ever so sensitive world, people are getting killed for their beliefs around the world in very brutal ways, while slavery also exists among Arabs, and subjugation of women in modern times is institutionalized. Those are facts. Another fact is that Christians and Muslims have been fighting almost nonstop through the ages since Islam first assaulted Christians in the early beginnings of the Islamic faith.
First, the modern, politically correct narrative has taught wrongly that the Christian Crusaders were the aggressors in their wars against Islam. In fact, as Islam grew and spread itself by the sword (a blame generally lain on Christians), Muslims conquered Christian lands in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, more or less completely conquering Spain except for a small hold out area. These Christian lands were not stolen from the Arabs. Christianity began in those lands. It seems there had been tolerance and some assurances of safety to those Christians by Muslim leaders. The failure of such safety precipitated the earliest crusades. Application by moderns of their modern standards to brutal historical times and the warriors who fought then have caused another mischaracterization of the Crusades. Yes their warriors were brutal, everybody's warriors were brutal then.
Long after the Crusades, Spain freed itself only to sail across the world to settle the Philippines with a strong Muslim presence in its southern regions. Having fought the Muslim Moors at home for 800 years, Spaniards called the Filipino Muslims 'Moros' (Spanish for Moors). Spain fought the warlike Moros; America took the Philippines in the Spanish American War in 1898 and fought them from around 1902 onward. Peace was achieved and after Philippine Independence the Filipinos have fought them off and on ever since. Radicals within the Moros are now part of the worldwide terror network, and they have taken tourist captive off and on in the area.
Additional facts that are generally known but little reported are that several Islamist groups and Muslim nations do not recognize Israel and do not want it to exist. Israel is located in its ancestral lands and was reestablished there in modern times when there was no other established nation present in the area. Perhaps the British occupation at the time had prevented such a Palestinian nation; and perhaps when Israel was thus founded there in 1947 after World War II, wise leadership could have divided the land and formed two nations at the time. It did not happen, but the Palestinians do have Jordan.
As to profiling and whether we are fighting a whole religion, questions brought up at the beginning of this essay, and I have no definitive answers for, we will address them in future essays. I have some suggested answers.
PERHAPS SOMEDAY THOSE IN DENIAL WILL ACCEPT THESE THINGS
Latin American Catholic priests in general tend toward social and political
activism. It is sort of in the blood as the history there has often encompassed
repressive regimes and priests were among those who struggled against them.
Historically, many in the clergy became outright activists, and this
sometimes led them toward socialist and Marxists leanings. Rebel movements
often became Communist in nature or even in membership and priests were often
directly involved, sometimes as members. All of that, throughout the post World
War II era and perhaps a bit before is now woven in the fabric of South and
Central America and even up into Mexico. One remembers the classic scene during
Saint John Paul II's South American visit when a known activist priest knelt
before him seeking a spur of the moment blessing request perhaps. I don't
remember if the blessing was imparted, but the priest did receive an
admonishment replete with a pope's wagging finger.
The point is that social (and unavoidably attached 'political') activism is
in the Catholic clergy from south of the border (in reference to the U.S.A.).
Interest in such issues is in all of us, all humans; but, as Christians, if we
are taught and asked to be in this world but not too much of this world, then
shouldn't our shepherds set the example. Shouldn't the head shepherd set the
best example.
We currently have a good, sensitive, loving, Christian man in the role of
pope, one of the best perhaps the world had to offer during the selection time.
Yet he has unnerved conservative Catholics with his support of the Climate
change movement. His fans have explained to me that he is just taking the
Christian position that we are stewards of the earth. He has; and we are. Yet
he has seemed very supporting of the actual Climate Change political movement
that has been pretty clearly identified with efforts to redistribute wealth
from successful nations to poorer ones through economic penalties. Actual
outright intentionally erroneous data has joined the often flawed data that
supports that cause.
Similarly and particularly grating was the mass performed at the U.S.
border, apparently to send some message about illegal immigrants coming into
the United States. It is more than an issue of the poor, and I do not need to
reiterate all of that here. Clearly some in the Catholic Church are not fond of
borders, which is curious as 'one world' seems to harken to the one world order
type of scenario of the more negative aspects of the End Times. I was not aware
we supposed to try to rush those events. More ominous, with respect to this
issue, is the underreported issue of an activist movement to fill the American
Southwest with enough immigrants (legal or otherwise) to force (through sheer
numbers) the return of the land to Mexico. [On an aside to this article, that
issue necessitates a strong, conservative, nationalistic American government
now and in the forecastable future.]
Up until now, the two issues mentioned just above have been the only things
that bothered me about this pope. His support of distributism is not socialist,
as that economic principle supports capitalistic entrepreneurship on small
local levels within the concept of subsidiarity, more local (even familial)
control.
These recent comments about combating the Zika virus with contraception,
however casual, small, and seemingly innocent, are also apparently in direct
opposition to clear, unchangeable Catholic doctrine. It seems that on at least
some small level we have a somewhat liberal pope.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
DO WE FIGHT EVIL?
One of my favorite priests irritated me a bit at Sunday mass. Full of the love of God, as he should be and we should be, and as he expresses so well, he led off with a comment that concerned me. He (in this Easter season) suggested that, should we imagine the most evil acts by the worst people, the reaction we might likely have would not be Christ's reaction. Perhaps, verbal craftsman that he is, he made sure that he created a true statement that would cause a reaction (perhaps an angry one) yet be hard to challenge.
Verbal craftsman that I am, I will accept his challenge and challenge it. He knows his audience. This is a conservative place after all.
The Christ we have been taught and know is the Christ of mercy, and we would n't have it anyother way. He sacrificed fro us, ALL OF US, which was the priest's point. And I do not doubt any of that.
What I will do is to imagine a different narrative, which I do not believe changes the Christ we know but allows us to speculate on his reaction were he with us at this moment or his reaction in Heaven now. [Yes, I know he is always with us.] Thus, I believe the Christ in Heaven with the Father would possibly . . . perhaps probably agree with what follows here.
Don't bet your life (or soul) on this. I don't have my theology degree yet . . . and never will.
I believe the good Irish priest was referencing the atrocities against Christians in the Middle East. And, I believe that, Irishman that he is and a bit on in years, he has some memory of the 'Troubles ' in Ireland over the decades. He's a priest; he abhors such things. But 'atrocity' is such a sterile word . . . so generic. I have been researching and writing about the worst of times in the Old West that involved the worst atrocities perpetrated by some of the roughest native cultures at that particular time. The behavior is characteristic of some segments of Native American society from the less developed socioethnic groups within the larger people. Many native groups in this great land were less vicious in their defense of their families and societies.
My ultimate point is that some things are unacceptable, and I believe that the Christ that took a whip to the people who would defile the Father's temple, would have a hard time telling people today (or in 1874 Texas) that they should not defend themselves and others with the use of violence. I find it hard to believe as well that attacking a very evil enemy in his hideouts or villages would be immoral in the eyes of God or the Son.
I won't get into a debate in Luke about selling one's garment and buying a sword. This relates to the pending arrest of Christ, and he was not planning on the disciples saving him with their swords. He had no intention of avoiding his fate. I suppose he could be suggesting that the apostles could protect themselves with weapons in the days following. The issue here is more about standing against evil. Does turning the cheek mean capitulation to evil. I cannot believe we are expected to allow evil to be perpetrated on ourselves and/or others when we have the means to prevent it. I believe that the concepts of (on the smaller level) turning the other cheek and (on the larger level) suffering martyrdom are meant for scenarios where there are no other choices. This was seen in the Coliseum in Rome and similar arenas elsewhere as the early Christians face their fate during the reigns of certain emperors. They too had choices, but those were usually unacceptable, such as renouncing their beliefs.
Verbal craftsman that I am, I will accept his challenge and challenge it. He knows his audience. This is a conservative place after all.
The Christ we have been taught and know is the Christ of mercy, and we would n't have it anyother way. He sacrificed fro us, ALL OF US, which was the priest's point. And I do not doubt any of that.
What I will do is to imagine a different narrative, which I do not believe changes the Christ we know but allows us to speculate on his reaction were he with us at this moment or his reaction in Heaven now. [Yes, I know he is always with us.] Thus, I believe the Christ in Heaven with the Father would possibly . . . perhaps probably agree with what follows here.
Don't bet your life (or soul) on this. I don't have my theology degree yet . . . and never will.
I believe the good Irish priest was referencing the atrocities against Christians in the Middle East. And, I believe that, Irishman that he is and a bit on in years, he has some memory of the 'Troubles ' in Ireland over the decades. He's a priest; he abhors such things. But 'atrocity' is such a sterile word . . . so generic. I have been researching and writing about the worst of times in the Old West that involved the worst atrocities perpetrated by some of the roughest native cultures at that particular time. The behavior is characteristic of some segments of Native American society from the less developed socioethnic groups within the larger people. Many native groups in this great land were less vicious in their defense of their families and societies.
My ultimate point is that some things are unacceptable, and I believe that the Christ that took a whip to the people who would defile the Father's temple, would have a hard time telling people today (or in 1874 Texas) that they should not defend themselves and others with the use of violence. I find it hard to believe as well that attacking a very evil enemy in his hideouts or villages would be immoral in the eyes of God or the Son.
I won't get into a debate in Luke about selling one's garment and buying a sword. This relates to the pending arrest of Christ, and he was not planning on the disciples saving him with their swords. He had no intention of avoiding his fate. I suppose he could be suggesting that the apostles could protect themselves with weapons in the days following. The issue here is more about standing against evil. Does turning the cheek mean capitulation to evil. I cannot believe we are expected to allow evil to be perpetrated on ourselves and/or others when we have the means to prevent it. I believe that the concepts of (on the smaller level) turning the other cheek and (on the larger level) suffering martyrdom are meant for scenarios where there are no other choices. This was seen in the Coliseum in Rome and similar arenas elsewhere as the early Christians face their fate during the reigns of certain emperors. They too had choices, but those were usually unacceptable, such as renouncing their beliefs.
When School 'Tolerance' Stifles the Christian Conscience - Crisis Magazine
When School 'Tolerance' Stifles the Christian Conscience - Crisis Magazine: People often speak of places of sanctuary, where they feel most free and where they can “breathe.” One such place for me—a former high school teacher—is within the walls of a school. There is something invigorating and God-inspired in having people of different ages, backgrounds, and experiences exercise their minds around common subjects and principles, …
Explosions rock Brussels airport, subway; 26 reported dead
Explosions rock Brussels airport, subway; 26 reported dead: BRUSSELS (AP) รข€” Explosions, at least one likely caused by a suicide bomber, rocked the Brussels
America and the world must learn to hit ISIS and other aggressors and villainous organizations hard where they live with old battle techniques in the newer more precise ways. But we must be aware of and accept the collateral damage, and we must know that sometimes the community is complicit enough to be the target itself.
America and the world must learn to hit ISIS and other aggressors and villainous organizations hard where they live with old battle techniques in the newer more precise ways. But we must be aware of and accept the collateral damage, and we must know that sometimes the community is complicit enough to be the target itself.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Introduction For a New Blog
I never liked the names 'Blog' or 'Blogger', yet here I am late on a Friday night (early on a Saturday morning) with a little Evan Williams and some thoughts.
I've been blogging, without admitting it, for some time now and this will be my fourth active blog. There's a dead one here and there. I will, in the future, invite you to the others. One is sociopolitical with a distinctly traditional Christian Conservative tone. Not the least restrictive as many believe that philosophy is liberating in so many ways. Perhaps that is what we will explore first here, as this will be my rambling, sometimes flighty, sometimes very deep blog.
Yes, that is what I'll/we'll do here . . . if anyone else shows up. The other 3 blogs are on my personal websites, and I hope you'll read them on occasion and share them often. I write what I call essays because the are perhaps more crafted than 'posts' and less researched than 'articles' . . . they are (I hope) well crafted opinion pieces with the facts that come from experience behind them. Yes, I'm the seasoned old fart know-it-all with (hopefully) some measure of humble pie in my diet.
My goals are twofold: the presentation of sound ideas and promotion of my novels. I am not seeking great wealth form the latter as I am well aware that my style and subject matter is not necessarily popular with the general public. I'm a bit old school . . . an anachronism, and that's just fine. Our world is changing fast. Nevertheless, I feel that these are worthy reads, and I've gathered a few experienced and knowledgeable readers that feel quite the same.
The point is that there are absolutes and things that are good enough to be, even if they aren't. And I have a few in mind that I think should be absolutes in a worthy life that you may want to throw back in my face. Toss gently and respectfully (metaphorically( and we'll get along fine. That is what this blog will be fore: throwing crap at each other gently . . . if anyone shows up.
I have a very basic theory in mind for next time . . . one that will, perhaps, both make sense and rile you . . . if any of 'you' are there.
For now here are the novels, as stated, the promotion of which is my other goal.
Here is the link to my period series.
Here is the link to my modern, dystopian novel.
I've been blogging, without admitting it, for some time now and this will be my fourth active blog. There's a dead one here and there. I will, in the future, invite you to the others. One is sociopolitical with a distinctly traditional Christian Conservative tone. Not the least restrictive as many believe that philosophy is liberating in so many ways. Perhaps that is what we will explore first here, as this will be my rambling, sometimes flighty, sometimes very deep blog.
Yes, that is what I'll/we'll do here . . . if anyone else shows up. The other 3 blogs are on my personal websites, and I hope you'll read them on occasion and share them often. I write what I call essays because the are perhaps more crafted than 'posts' and less researched than 'articles' . . . they are (I hope) well crafted opinion pieces with the facts that come from experience behind them. Yes, I'm the seasoned old fart know-it-all with (hopefully) some measure of humble pie in my diet.
My goals are twofold: the presentation of sound ideas and promotion of my novels. I am not seeking great wealth form the latter as I am well aware that my style and subject matter is not necessarily popular with the general public. I'm a bit old school . . . an anachronism, and that's just fine. Our world is changing fast. Nevertheless, I feel that these are worthy reads, and I've gathered a few experienced and knowledgeable readers that feel quite the same.
The point is that there are absolutes and things that are good enough to be, even if they aren't. And I have a few in mind that I think should be absolutes in a worthy life that you may want to throw back in my face. Toss gently and respectfully (metaphorically( and we'll get along fine. That is what this blog will be fore: throwing crap at each other gently . . . if anyone shows up.
I have a very basic theory in mind for next time . . . one that will, perhaps, both make sense and rile you . . . if any of 'you' are there.
For now here are the novels, as stated, the promotion of which is my other goal.
Here is the link to my period series.
Here is the link to my modern, dystopian novel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)