The Islamic State has continued its campaign of religious fascism in murdering thousands and “cleansing” areas for its view of the true Islamic faith. This process appears to include the burning of books in cities like Mosul, which once held a treasure trove of ancient texts including works dating back to 5000 BC. Some 2,000 books that range from children’s stories to poetry to historical texts were burned in front of residents who were told that such texts “promote infidelity and call for disobeying Allah. So they will be burned.”
It is all a part of the purification of areas, including the destruction of Sunni and Christian places of worship and libraries. A University of Mosul history professor said that IS has been systematic in targeting libraries, including a large Sunni Muslim library, the library of the 265-year-old Latin Church and Monastery of the Dominican Fathers and the Mosul Museum Library. It appears that IS may be selling some of the books on the black market, however. The only thing more motivating for the Islamic State than a good cleansing is cold hard cash. Yet, Islamic State is believed to have been successful in its efforts to burn maps and books from the Ottoman Empire and book collections involving works that are centuries old.
As discussed earlier, the Islamic State has already destroyed ancient shrines including those of Seth, Jirjis and Jonah. Their destruction reminds many of the damage from the Mongols who threw ancient books into the Tigris River.
It is particularly telling that, like so many fascists and terrorists before them, Islamic State views education and books to be some of their greatest enemies. It is a movement that thrives on ignorance and feeding their followers with an exclusive mix of extreme Islamic teachings and pure unadulterated hate. They are now preparing to defend Mosul from an expected attack of coalition forces — a battle that could destroy what remains of the city and costs thousands of additional lives.
As an educator, I can only image the pain of faculty at the University of Mosul in watching the very foundation for learning in the ancient city destroyed by these violent and ignorant men. Academics universally believe that the nature progression of humanity is toward knowledge. Islamic State and its predecessors can only slow that progression. However, the loss of these ancient works is a terrible price to pay since they constitute the very foundational works of Islamic education and development.
Issac…you are dodging. Did your history tell you we were all baby killers and woman killers, too? The mess was created in 1946 when we abetted the French in regaining their colony. You do have a rather distorted view of what it was like to be young in the USA in the 1960’s…hardly anyone was a drone…I enlisted in 1968, at age 26, not because I was a drone, but because I’d given my word that I would do so. I do not regret it….and subsequently I have a history of not abiding illegal or immoral orders.
And, from your prior posts, you r-e-a-l-l-y do NOT have a grasp of what the US military really is like. Sad that. First off, we are not like the French, brave as they are in the enlisted & officer ranks below general, we are taught from day one in basic training to “think.” And we do. As I said earlier, read up on WO Hugh Thompson (no relation to me) … there were, and are, far more of guys like him than otherwise.
Aridog
My historian(s), growing up in Canada and France, were not limited to those who ‘were there’ or those who grew up in a well censored world of us and them. As a citizen of a country you go when they tell you and where they send you. You do what they tell you to do. You don’t think for yourself. Why else would they conscript at 18, right after high school, and before one has had a chance to think and take in the big picture. Muhammed Ali said it better than anyone. “I ain’t got no quarrel with the Viet Cong.” Too bad more young men didn’t understand. It would have been over sooner.
Issac said …
The US funded and supplied the French for them to go back in and take over from where they left off.
Just as I am very sure I’ve said was a giant mistake many times here and elsewhere. What’s your point?
The rest of your presumptions are drivel at best…as I’ve said once already on this thread, Oliver Stone should not be your historian.
Paul and Aridog
Read your history. The US funded and supplied the French for them to go back in and take over from where they left off. The French people were for giving the Vietnamese their own rule, especially after the great deflation of national ego and an incredible first row seat in the theatre of what it’s like to be occupied. The US colored in the map and went about defining the us and them argument that had started with the Russian Revolution.
When the French had had enough and got beat, the US propped up puppets and slowly added to their military presence. The South was nothing but a series of corrupt puppets backed by the US and the North was a reluctant partner with China, their traditional enemy. The real crimes were committed when Kissinger bombed the bejeezus out of the North.
Tom Nash
Both sides committed atrocities. I don’t see the difference between bombing 1,700,000 North Vietnamese civilians to death and then going back for lunch and chopping up a village with machetes. Dead is dead. Women and children are women and children. The North lost 1,300,000 soldiers on top of that, the true heroes.
We are Americans and lost 50,000+ and all those maimed, so it is hard to see the other side. Seeing the other side is the first step towards not trying to annihilate them. The real disgrace is doing it all again in Iraq. First step, make them lesser than us, then make them dangerous, then evil, then bomb them to smithereens. There were and are better ways to go about all of this. Unfortunately we were stuck with a vacuous straw man and two wannabe Presidents who had simply hung around long enough to be there when Bush came along. Somebody ought to make a movie, in a while, it’s too soon right now.
issac –
I have checked out the history again and do not see what you are seeing. I think you need to recheck your sources.
Tom Nash…my former RVN veterans, those in the RVN military, that I continue to correspond with, would agree with you.
Paul C … surely you do NOT compare the US Military population today with that of 1941….when we had a mere 450K in all forces. BTW…we are heading for that number once again. The Pentagon won’t shrink much, but the field fighting forces will as we speak. In my first “RIF” I was offered $10K to stay as a Ordnance guy, but zero as my secondary MOS of 11B (infantry). If you do, you support my thinking. Back then we HAD to go with what we had, temporarily, but rapidly built up to be one of the forces that won WWII….some 12 Million by WWII end. Today we won’t do that, not that we can’t, but that we won’t. Thus I think Rumsfeld was a fool, with his contention that we’d just have to make do, even in the long run, if not outright mendacious. “Shortsighted” is the term I’d use.
I might be missing something, so show me where Rumsfeld actively tried to increase our forces geometrically, similar even by half, to WWII? With all we’d learned in Vietnam, somehow he couldn’t foresee the new IED’s and the reaction of terrorists in the ME. How a rag tag outfit could do so much damage to us and or allies? Show me one place where we’ve actually succeeded in the ME as it stands today? Every Arab I know, and there a fair number, knew we’d not stay or build up for the long haul….even when they supported our initial efforts. You may go with what you have at the time, but you do not win with that number. Rumsfeld told Bush43 what he wanted to hear, not what he needed to hear.
Aridog – the military is happy with a volunteer force. Because of that you are going to have lower force numbers. If you want to ramp up the numbers you will have to re-instate the draft.
Isaac; I had always thought that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese accounted for some of the millions of death/causualities of the war.
When we pulled out, I thought the execution of 50,000 plus Vietnamese was committed by the N. Vietnamese who liberated them. I also thought it was the Vietnamese Communist who imprisoned millions in “political re-education camps”, and motivated countless “boat people” to risk and lose their lives.
I stand corrected, since you wrote that “the slaughter stopped when Americans started thinking for themselves”. Must be a blast to feel free to rewrite history.
Issac said …
If the US had of honored the promises the French made …
The very worst thing we did in SE Asia post WWII was to enable the French to return to their colonial status. Why? Anything after that is the consequence of that first stupid move…
Aridog – going to agree with you on the French. Actually, the worst thing that happened was electing FDR to 3rd and 4th term. He thought he could handle Stalin and Churchill and both pushed him around like he was a baby in a pram.
Paul C….You go with what you have only when you have to do so…not just because. My experience with the Rumsfeld Pentagon was dismal at best. He was hard headed and didn’t sponsor adequate forces to handle his tasks, even after any fool could see we didn’t have enough. Hence my discomfort with the WWII comparison. He did however favor his crony folks…no doubt persuaded by Cheney. I voted for Bush43, not Rumsfeld, and I got Cheney as a side benefit? Please.
As for the surge…that was a momentary tactical victory, and any Iraqi I know will say the same thing. In the end, it was a disaster. Witness Iraq today. I have a fair amount of experience with counter insurgency and I figure Rumsfeld had none. You cannot just go in do your thing and leave as if everything is okay. In 1945 we had 12 million or so active uniformed forces, in 2001 we had but 1.5 million. No way we could carry out what we started. Going with what we had was insufficient, at best. And he knew it. Thus, I say he was a fool.
Aridog – and how many troops did we have when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? There has been a move to a smarter more technical force rather than more bodies on the battlefield. It is not one I agree with, but I do not get to make the decisions. You can push for stuff and if you cannot get Congress (Democratic) to go along, you are not going to get it.
davidn25575
You are cherry picking. Read the full text. Roman emperors ruled, theoretically, under the ideal of Rome. US Presidents rule, theoretically, under the ideal of America. Christian kings and emperors, popes, Eastern kings, etc ruled as agents of gods. The ideals were whatever the pope and/or king/emperor told the people they were, cuz they were the only ones privileged to hear the big guy’s words. The New Testament took hundreds of years to refine. Schisms and Synods are still going on. Interpretation is the name of the game and those that can’t think for themselves allow others to interpret for them.
That Roman emperors and other leaders slaughtered millions is not the point. The US just finished slaughtering three million Vietnamese for reasons explained to the people through ideals, reasons basically designed by the leaders. The slaughter stopped when enough Americans started to think for themselves. There was no threat from China or Russia through Vietnam’s desire to be communist. Viet Nam’s traditional enemy had been China for centuries. The first war Viet Nam had after the US left was with China.
If the US had of honored the promises the French made to Viet Nam, for free elections after WW2 in exchange for not taking advantage of the situation, Viet Nam would probably gone the way of the other ‘Asian Tigers’ and been a power house of capitalism and free enterprise. Viet Nam would have elected or established a communist government and gone about its business of trading as it had been doing for centuries. It would have been the perfect bridge to communist China. The reason for the Viet Nam war was the ‘My way or the highway.’ position of the US and the military/industrial complex’s power over the government. The region was viewed from a colonialist perspective of raw materials, cheap labor, and consumers, better off in the Western camp than anywhere else. Why else did every major country in the world oppose the US involvement, except of course Australia and New Zealand.
If there is one thing history has taught us it is that the more a people are pushed the deeper they become entrenched. People will gravitate to the light of freedom and the ability to better themselves. Look at China, Russia, etc. History speaks louder than ideological mumbo jumbo.
Aridog
Watch the documentary, “The Surge”. It illustrates the success the military had after they were left alone by the three stooges and after they started to receive the extra troops. These, boots on the ground, also state that the extra troops or surge had little to do with it as they came in dribs and drabs. What was most effective was the establishment of localized US presence and the house by house taking back and beating off of thugs. There is a definite partition between the Cheney/Rumsfeld (I don’t include Bush as he was a straw man at best) technological shock and awe routine and when they gave it over to the specialists or the military to do. The running of the war by Cheney/Rumsfeld included every mistake they were warned against making. At the end of the documentary the top officers specifically state that the idea of winning with technological wonderment was not possible. You leave the fighting to the military and listen to the experts. The three stooges caused the mess. Obama may have removed the troops early or late. This may or may not be responsible in part only for the present chaos. However, the mess was made, the die was cast, and now the only ones that can fix it are those who live there, with stabilizing help from the West, as is happening with success. It’s been going on for centuries and will not sort itself with an invasion or two or three. If Obama is at fault, the three stooges are a hundred times more at fault. How soon we forget. The convenient selective memory of those that supported the worst Presidency in American history.
Issac said …
There is no comparison between Europe after WW2 and the Middle East.
OMG…you said something I agree with…first off we’ve not had sufficient military forces, in the past 2 decades, to even approach WWII denouement. Rumsfeld stupidly said, more or less, you go with what you have…he was a fool.
Jill said …
We should ask some questions of our own leaders–one of those is why did you arm this madmen?
Agree…the US has all too often tried to eliminate dictators who were actually the better alternative to chaos. We succeeded and found chaos. Not our business in too many cases. It was and is meddling where our knowledge was less than it should have been. It is the root of the accusation of “Imperialism” by the US. Lacking the forces to emulate WWII ending, we had not play to make.
justagurl said …
“Iraq wanted us to leave… It is their country, their choice..”
Based upon my conversations with my Iraqi refugee neighbors, I’d have to say you are wrong. They were delighted with the invasion, but not so much the outcome. Every one of them sought the elimination of Saddam (and I attended several local meetings & forums where this was the main topic), but not the corruption that followed. Those who used to visit their homeland, no longer do so.
Anarchist 2.0 said …
The first thing that happens you join the military is you have your brains scrambled so that you’ll obey orders that conflict with your basic survival instincts. The military makes you incapable of rational thought.
I’m guessing you’ve never served in US military uniform. You are referring, incidentally, to how European Armies reacted in the WWII era, and even now, not the US military. Our strongest point is that we do NOT generally follow immoral or illegal orders. I’ve been there, done that. Where do you get your ideas? The reason a US Army or USMC PFC can rise to be a company commander under combat duress is precisely the antithesis to your theory.
I humbly suggest you look up and read the history of the soldiers (start with WO Hugh Thompson) who stopped the My Lai massacre as soon as they could for a good example. Oliver Stone is NOT the expert you think he is…now contradict me if you can.
Aridog – you do go with what you have or you don’t go at all. When WWII started we went with what we had.
For an objective, factual, and concise review/analysis of the Iraq War, I strongly recommend the PBS FRONTLINE documentary “Losing Iraq”.
“We watch because Obama doesn’t care about Christians and Jews and Yadizies being murdered. Genocide is not as important as his NCAA bracket. He only makes token moves while freeing terrorists and facilitating Iran getting the bomb. There is a holocaust going on and he shrugs and goes off to play golf.”
They ought to make it illegal for Republicans to engage in public forums involving people over 14. When Republicans are involved, the collective IQ drops and the forum is flooded with lies and fantasy from a bunch of grown children that believe that if they insist a lie is true enough times, then it magically becomes true.
Conservatives are the most intellectually lazy people on the planet. They love perpetually whining about how they are victimized by “liberals”, but that won’t ever motivate them to do anything besides doing anything but watching television or listening to the radio in order to develop their opinions.
When they refer to historical examples, they just make it up. When they refer to what a “liberal” politician is doing, the refuse to ever consult the actual historical record. They know absolutely nothing about political philosophy, they are clueless about the voting records of any candidate, they are terrified of myths spread by propagandists on Fox, and they are completely supportive of nonsensical policy because they lack the capacity to understand cause and effect.
Conservatives are anti-social slime that should be herded into camps and subjected to education and reading until cognitive dissonance is alleviated.
Anarchist 2.0 –
Are your little feelers being hurt?
“Obama 15% approval rating w/ the military. What else needs to be said.”
The first thing that happens you join the military is you have your brains scrambled so that you’ll obey orders that conflict with your basic survival instincts. The military makes you incapable of rational thought. A lot of people recover after leaving, but some some are just lunatics permanently. I could care less what the military thinks about anything. The least important metric of success if the opinion of the military.
Obama 15% approval rating w/ the military. What else needs to be said. He makes Carter look like a great CIC.
Just the Muslim form of lefty PC, innit?
on 1, February 2, 2015 at 9:05 pmPaul C. Schulte
Karen – I think expecting your husband to lie convincingly about the dress is putting a terrible strain on your marriage. Have you considered counseling?
Regardless of what I say, my wife changes to something else.
*************************
Bwhahahaha. Too much.
We watch because Obama doesn’t care about Christians and Jews and Yadizies being murdered. Genocide is not as important as his NCAA bracket. He only makes token moves while freeing terrorists and facilitating Iran getting the bomb. There is a holocaust going on and he shrugs and goes off to play golf.
We can only wait out his misbegotten tenure but it will be too late for thousands if not millions that his foolish policies have doomed to death.
http://youtu.be/mX4XCVnsECM
Yes those Iraqis sure were grateful our military shed its blood to rid them of Sadam.
Inga wrote: “Yes those Iraqis sure were grateful our military shed its blood to rid them of Sadam [sic].”
A video of terrorist sympathizers in Iraq from 2008? How about this video from the time we liberated that country from Saddam:
[youtube=http://youtu.be/AVeUEABXDfg]