I have been so focused on world events
recently that I feel I should take a bit of a break and do a post
about something different, if only to give us a bit of a respite.
After some thought, and false starts, I have decided to do a little
bit about my home state of Minnesota. Since we are known as the
“Land of 10,000 Lakes”, I can't think of anything more
appropriate than talking a bit about Lake Superior. It is, after
all, the largest of the Great Lakes and is shared by both the United
States and Canada. Here is a snippet of background on the Great Lakes and Lake Superior in particular.
As is mentioned in the video our city of Duluth is actually more like a seaside port, servicing the large ships carrying goods for export and import. One of the most popular tourist attractions is the Aerial Lift Bridge, which allows ships to enter and exit the port.
And this:
Lake Superior, like any large body of water, has been known to swallow ships and their crews whole. One of the more famous wrecks was immortalized in this Gordon Lightfoot song:
As you can see waves on Superior are to be taken seriously.
There, I have done my small part for the Minnesota tourism industry. :)
249 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 249 of 249"Simple human nature... After a couple thousand years even a hide-bound system like the Catholic Church would have corrected a system that pissed off Chief High Muck-a-mucks just before they were supposed to do something important for da boss."
Not if they are suitably incentivised. Otherwise a system like "employment" would be rapidly self-correcting, and I don't see any sign of "simple human nature" making it disappear. This is a rather transparent red herring, therefore. I reiterate: you don't have any information about what the bishops knew.
[There was blowback because] one would have to presume some of them shared your theological bent. And apparently him being Pope didn't impress them enough
Does "one" actually know anything or is "one" guessing?
Right, now that we have your joke answers out of the way, let me explain how it was:
The first document -- the "draft proposal", "interim document" or "relatio post disceptationem" -- obviously wasn't entirely the Pope's agenda. It was supposed, from the bishops' point of view, to be a summary of their prior deliberations.
The blowback occurred because some of its paragraphs did not appear to be anything any of them had said. Furthermore, in the view of some participants, they did not seem to be anything any bishop would say in a synod.
That leaves is to theorise about how they got there. The Pope inserted them is one theory, for which there are arguments for and against.
Now we come back to your suspicion -- I can't call it a theory since you have presented no evidence for it:
"Those of us not ‘Irish Catholics’ (so understood) are free to suspect that the Pope knew what he was going to ask the lesser chiefs to ‘consider’; i.e. he had a proposal in mind and he had the chops within the Catholic bureaucracy to get that proposal on the agenda."
You are also free to suspect that Dracula swooped down, bit the bishops on the neck and erased their memories, leaving the Pope free to insert whatever he wanted in the Relatio. Or maybe Dracula wrote it himself. The Pope ... Dracula ... or anyone else who had a hand in drafting the Relatio -- you don't have a theory which can distinguish between them.
‘in person voter fraud’ means somebody voting as somebody else, either using someone else's name and registration or making fictitious registrations to vote as multiple, fictitious people. It is, quite simply, too inefficient to be worth the risk.
Agree totally, which is whey I have never been concerned about the need for a picture ID when actually voting. Someone is making a mountain out of a molehill for other reasons.
Marcus,
Your video looks interesting. I will have to check it out later.
"whey" should be "why", of course.
"I reiterate: you don't have any information about what the bishops knew.
Wasn't the test when you first proposed it.
"You have no reason to think they didn't either."
Petes @ Thu Oct 23, 10:25:00 am
I did have reason to think so; I explained that. It was adequate enough reason for me to make it my first guess (and current guess) that they had some knowledge of what was coming up--they weren't going in there totally blind. Now you want to change your criteria (you're doin’ a lot of that in this thread) but retain the old answer (you've been doin’ a lot of that too).
Let's see, what else ya got?
"Does ‘one’ actually know anything or is ‘one’ guessing?"
I'm not gonna waste time on explaining the import of the word ‘presume’.
"…the 'draft proposal’…obviously wasn't entirely the Pope's agenda."
I never said nor implied that it was ‘entirely’ his. You can't have missed that; you're not that stupid. This is just fuss and filler, so, next thing…
"The blowback occurred because some of its paragraphs did not appear to be
anything any of them had said…"
So you say. Assuming that to be true (not a good assumption in my opinion, but, for the sake of argument…): Assuming that to be true this would appear to be evidence that the Pope did indeed have the chops with the Catholic bureaucracy to get his desired items on the agenda, as I suggested the first time. Next thing…
"Now we come back to your suspicion -- I can't call it a theory…"
Merriam-Webster can. Definitions 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5 (leaning on the word plausible), 6a and 6b.
"You are also free to suspect that Dracula swooped down…you don't have a
theory which can distinguish between them."
I don't need one.
"So you say. Assuming that to be true (not a good assumption in my opinion, but, for the sake of argument…): Assuming that to be true this would appear to be evidence that the Pope did indeed have the chops with the Catholic bureaucracy to get his desired items on the agenda, as I suggested the first time."
The Pope ... or someone. We know for a fact the Pope didn't write it in his own hand, nor did he directly devise the content.
"I don't need [a theory]."
Correct. You're entirely free to make it up as you go along. Sensible people are entirely free to ignore you.
Correction, in case you could have possible misconstrued that by accident (not bloody likely, but still…): I don't need a theory that distinguishes between the Pope and an imaginary Dracula.
Nor do you need a theory to distinguish between the Pope's intervention to directly influence the Relatio, and someone else doing the same to further their agenda. There are several people with opportunity and possible motive. You're free to "suspect" anything you like. To get taken seriously (by me at any rate) you need evidence, or at least cogent argument.
By the same token you need to be able to counter the facts that detract from your case. Among these are the fact that the bishops didn't accept these supposed papal agenda items. Your argument so far for why the Pope would set forth an agenda that would be immediately shot down is that he was "seeking the approval of his peers". You may well be the only person to whom that doesn't sound incredible. There is also the not insignificant matter that this has been widely represented in the MSM as a defeat for the Pope. An approval seeker would presumably not want that.
And you just keep circling back… If I'd known this was where you were gonna end up I'd have insisted that you end it fairly early last night when you first went with that line.
"If you're suggesting that somebody else slid that stuff in there past the Pope
without his active support, indeed his connivance, probably his conception, then we've got
ourselves a disagreement that cannot be gotten past. I'm not willing to declare all that
reporting as ‘hogwash’ just
to support that unlikely proposition.
"But… You're more than welcome to try to convince us of your proposition here. Have at
it. Floor's yours."
Lee C. @ Thu Oct 23, 12:45:00 am (prior page)
"Your argument so far for why the Pope would set forth an agenda that would be immediately
shot down is that he was ‘seeking the approval of his peers’…."
No, you claimed that the Pope was seeking the approval of his peers. To wit:
"Petes said...
***
"Why do you imagine he wants their approval?"
Petes @ Wed Oct 22, 10:06:00 pm
"Lee C. ― U.S.A. said...
‘Why do you imagine he wants their approval?’
"Oh, that. Well, I don't recall that I'd been imagining on that; but, now that you've brought
it up, I suspect everyone appreciates the approval of their peers, even Popes."
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 22, 10:40:00 pm
"If you're suggesting that somebody else slid that stuff in there past the Pope without his active support, indeed his connivance, probably his conception, then we've got ourselves a disagreement that cannot be gotten past."
Suit yourself.
" If I'd known this was where you were gonna end up I'd have insisted that you end it fairly early last night when you first went with that line."
Oh no, we managed to establish a few things. We established (Thu Oct 23, 07:38:00 am) that you're not able to identify the document containing what you refer to as "that stuff". You haven't read it. You definitely can't identify the controversial bits of it. By the same token, you have no idea what utterances the Pope has previously made on those topics that would make it more or less likely that this is his handiwork.
"No, you claimed that the Pope was seeking the approval"
I trust you (or anyone) are capable of searching the first page of these comments for the word "approval" to ascertain that that particular fabrication doesn't pass the smell test.
"Oh no, we managed to establish a few things."
World don't work that way. Just ‘cause I let some of your more egregious babble pass unchallenged don't mean you've established squat. If I let you think I had to deny everything you fabricate up out of whole cloth then you'd soon get the impression that was a winning ticket for you. Just keep on doing it ‘til I missed one.
"I trust you (or anyone) are capable of searching the first page of these comments for
the word ‘approval’…"
You should have learned not to bluff by now. Obviously you haven't.
"As for the ‘scheming Pope’ thing, I'd guess that the Pope thought it a good
thing and a good time to finally put these issues to the Chief High Muck-a-mucks
directly, and make them take a public position on it (hence his insistence that
the draft be published, even the proposals that didn't pass) even if it wasn't a
good bet to get their approval on the first presentation. I figure he figured it time to
break the ice, even if he couldn't pierce it on the first swing at it."
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 22, 07:02:00 pm
You do see that part ‘bout it being ‘not a good bet to get their approval’, do you not?
Pope was just playin’ a little hardball there. I doubt he was too surprised when they responded in kind.
"If I let you think I had to deny everything you fabricate up out of whole cloth then you'd soon get the impression that was a winning ticket for you."
LOL. Says the guy who thinks an argument consists of stating his own "suspicions". No mere suspicion is required to establish you haven't read the interim document. You stated yourself it "wasn't worth your time". (Thu Oct 23, 07:38:00 am)
"make them take a public position on it (hence his insistence that the draft be published, even the proposals that didn't pass)"
LOL. You do realise their individual votes are not recorded? So, not public then.
"You do see that part ‘bout it being ‘not a good bet to get their approval’, do you not?
Pope was just playin’ a little hardball there."
That's when I asked you why he sought their approval at all. You've been tryin' to allege since that you've never said that. To which I repeat: Ctrl/F + "approval".
"You stated yourself it ‘wasn't worth your time’."
Damn! Can't you get anything right?
"What's your point? Maybe it's worth my time; probably not."
Lee C. @ Thu Oct 23, 07:38:00 am
You neglected to state your point. We moved on.
"LOL. You do realise their individual votes are not recorded?
Yeah just the totals for each individual paragraph.
"So, not public then."
Public enough for the public to judge how much resistance there was, and to bring pressure to bear accordingly.
"To which I repeat: Ctrl/F + ‘approval’."
It appears you've walked yourself into a wall there; all by yourself, with no help and no guide. I'm not the only one who can do ‘Ctrl/F + approval’. Anybody else wants to check it, they're gonna peg you as a first-class idiot, total clueless bastard. (And I heartily recommend folks do their own search now.)
"Public enough for the public to judge how much resistance there was, and to bring pressure to bear accordingly."
Ah. Your argument is coming out in dribs and drabs despite yourself. So the Pope is playing to the public gallery. The head of the Catholic Church is using the main stream media and public opinion to get to his own bishops. LOLOL.
"first-class idiot, total clueless bastard."
I can see you're getting a bit excitable. Which is why you get one warning instead of zero warnings. That ain't gonna be tolerated on this blog. No more warnings.
"Ah. Your argument is coming out in dribs and drabs despite yourself."
Which part of…
"…time to finally put these issues to the Chief High Muck-a-mucks directly, and make them
take a public position on it…"
did you not understand the first time?
"No more warnings."
And a waste on that one. I don't consider that to be gratuitous. and I don't give a damn how you consider it, and I ain't wasting any time on trying to predict your unpredictable reactions. Do as you will. I'm surprised I'm still here anyway. And it's not like I'll miss your company.
"Which part of… "…time to finally put these issues to the Chief High Muck-a-mucks directly, and make them take a public position on it…" did you not understand the first time?"
This bit:
"Public enough for the public to judge how much resistance there was, and to bring pressure to bear accordingly."
I'm going to excuse my lack of understanding on the grounds that, uh, that bit wasn't there first time.
I'm also going to attribute my incredulity to your notion that the Pope is going to invite 200 bishops to Rome, public humiliate them as a group and en masse in the MSM without attention to their individual stances, and send them packing back to their dioceses to face the music with their congregations.
"'m also going to attribute my incredulity to your notion that the Pope is going to invite 200 bishops to Rome"
"…his own handpicked synod…"
Petes @ Wed Oct 22, 06:35:00 pm
This Pope has already picked 200 bishops? There's something that strains credibility.
As for publicly humiliating them, you, yourself, pointed out that their names aren't attached to their votes. Just the totals. They can choose to not be humiliated when they get back home. Nobody's gonna make an accusation against a bishop that they know they can't back up, nobody that matters anyway. But they probably will hear ‘bout those ‘other’ bishops. Kinda like Congress has a single-digit approval rating but 98% of congressmen who run for re-election get re-elected anyway. It's always ‘our guy's the good guy’ it's the ‘other guy’ who's at fault.
And I notice you did not choose to pursue your ‘Ctrl/F - "approval"’ point any further. Don't want to encourage the audience to look for themselves?
"This Pope has already picked 200 bishops? There's something that strains credibility"
No, but he can load any synod with an additional 15% of members handpicked by himself at the drop of a hat.
"They can choose to not be humiliated when they get back home."
They can also choose their own pre-emptive strike via the media, while still at the synod. Several of them did just that. Do you think that was part of the Pope's plan too? Or are you thinking he has some kind of "illuminati" type of control over the MSM?
"And I notice you did not choose to pursue your ‘Ctrl/F - "approval"’ point any further."
Don't feel the need to state it more than once. Plus, the fact it got you excited once already means a further mention could be construed as a provocation to gratuitous cussin' which I don't intend to do.
"No, but he can load any synod with an additional 15% of members handpicked
by himself at the drop of a hat."
But, of course, you do not allege that he did any such thing. Does the word ‘relevance’ have absolutely no meaning for you?
"They can also choose their own pre-emptive strike via the media, while still at
the synod. Several of them did just that."
Yeah, I noticed that. I was not surprised. I rather doubt the Pope was either.
"Don't feel the need to state it more than once."
S'okay. I'll remind them.
**** Folks ought go check out the first use of the word ‘approval’ on the prior page, for yourselves! Also note the context! ****
But, of course, you do not allege that he did any such thing. Does the word ‘relevance’ have absolutely no meaning for you?
The fact that he could have but didn't is relevant. What he did do was appoint the six-man committee running the synod. We can look at the degree to which they are a homogeneous bunch to help assess the likelihood that the Pope manipulated the whole affair, on which more below.
Ok, time to nip a bit of silliness in the bud:
"…time to finally put these issues to the Chief High Muck-a-mucks directly, and make them take a public position on it…"
Completely, utterly, ridiculous. While the current synod is one of those episodic events where Catholic issues pop up on the TV screen, anyone who actually cares already knows who the liberal and conservative bishops are. Neither are difficult to spot. If there was any doubt, there is a vast Catholic social media network as a mine of information. Nobody needs the Pope to tell them who's gonna be voting what way at the synod.
Secondly, the bishops' own presentations at the synod are usually a matter of public record. This synod was different, which is not unprecedented, but quite unusual. Which part of "making the bishops take public positions" was served by not publishing their presentations? Nevertheless, four of the bishops had preempted the synod by publishing their opinions in book form.
Third, when it became clear that the "Relatio" was being shoved down their necks, the bishops stood up en masse and insisted that their Circuli Minori observations got published. Those do contain their names for all to see. First one out of the blocks was Cardinal Pell of Sydney, the Pope's appointee to Secretariat of the Economy. He told the synod secretary, Baldisseri, that they'd had enough of being manipulated. Erdo, the Pope's appointee on the six-man team to organise the reporting of the conference then got behind Pell. Baldisseri objected but the rest of the bishops shouted him down. Are you seriously gonna maintain that the Pope was trying to flush out bishops not toeing the line when they all but rioted to insist their contributions got published?
Erdo also, on a separate occasion, named the author of the offending Relatio paragraphs as Bruno Forte, while distancing himself from it. Forte is another member of the synod team. So you have one papal appointee crafting controversial texts you have another disowning them. Interesting "chops" from Francis, no?
After the bishops' outcry over the Relatio, Francis added two more members to the team writing the final document. They included Napier, the conservative South African bishop who was completely unsympathetic to the offending paragraphs in the interim report.
I could go on a LOT more, but there's only so much silliness I'm prepared to refute at one go. There is a lot of conflicting evidence about Francis's attitude to the whole thing. Your blanket "suspicions" are naive and simplistic.
"S'okay. I'll remind them.
Surprised you're backing me up, but thanks anyway.
"The fact that he could have but didn't is relevant."
You assume he wanted it to pass this time, right here, right now, instead of wanting to crack the ice first and then ‘let nature take its course’ for awhile. I don't see that as a reasonable assumption given the magnitude of the changes proposed. Too many ‘Irish priests’ who've not yet accepted the inevitability of it all; they need time to assimilate the notion and come to terms with it. Ice melts faster once it's been cracked.
"While the current synod is one of those episodic events where Catholic issues
pop up on the TV screen, anyone who actually cares already knows who the liberal
and conservative bishops are."
I'm not gonna speculate on what happens in your crowd in Ireland, but there are a great many American Catholics who couldn't tell who all the American bishops are. They know the high profile ones, and their own bishop, of course. But that's about the limit of their interest in Catholic politics.
"Which part of "making the bishops take public positions" was served by not
publishing their presentations?"
"The bishops" as in plural, group noun.
I'm not sure what you think is proven by a recitation of some of the bishops acting unruly. I think it proves nothing relevant. Accordingly, I'll ignore that part as useless.
"There is a lot of conflicting evidence about Francis's attitude to the whole thing. "
Of course there is. I'm long familiar with the phenomenon. Usually, in Protestant America, it's conflicting claims that God is on their side, both sides. With conflicting evidence asserted to prove same, both sides. It had already occured to me that there would be conflicting claims that the Pope was really on the side of whomever was making the claim, both sides. Complete with assertions of conflicting evidence to prove it for both side. Of course there's a lot of conflicting evidence. It couldn't be any other way. The needs of the faithful must be met.
"Surprised you're backing me up…
Wasn't, as any readers will figure out quickly enough if I can get them to take my advise and look for themselves.
"You assume he wanted it to pass this time, right here, right now"
On the contrary, I'm not making any assumptions about him wanting anything to pass, any time.
"I don't see that as a reasonable assumption given the magnitude of the changes proposed."
And for the record, what are the changes? Do you know?
"Too many ‘Irish priests’ who've not yet accepted the inevitability of it all; they need time to assimilate the notion and come to terms with it."
I presume "Irish priests" is a metaphor. Your lib'rul American Catholics pals would almost certainly be taken aback at being out-lib'rulised by the current crop of actual Irish priests. The real "Irish priests" of your imagaination are all Americans. Most of the priests under 40 are straight down the line JP2 conservatives. The lib'ruls? ... LOL ... they've spent so many years talking about the inevitability of it all that they haven't realised they're all gonna be dead soon. Even among the bishops at the synod, the lib'ruls are the grey haired brigade. The youngsters (like Burke at 65 ;-) will see the German Kasparites out, and be around well after the current papacy has turned out its lights.
"...there are a great many American Catholics who couldn't tell who all the American bishops are. They know the high profile ones, and their own bishop, of course. But that's about the limit of their interest in Catholic politics."
Yet you somehow think they're the ones who are gonna count when it comes to putting pressure on these bishops they don't even know? LOL.
"I'm not sure what you think is proven by a recitation of some of the bishops acting unruly. I think it proves nothing relevant. Accordingly, I'll ignore that part as useless."
It means somebody overplayed their hand. The media is reporting it as a setback for the Pope (the media being as clueless as you as to who is behind the Relatio proposals, but assuming it is their darlin' Francis). Burke, when asked if it was a setback for the Pope declared that no, it was a setback for the unknown person or persons who drafted the Relatio. That's a cardinal who, unlike you, is actually at the synod. (There is a strong theory as to their identity floatin' around, but I ain't gonna spoonfeed it to ya).
"Of course there's a lot of conflicting evidence. It couldn't be any other way."
So remind me again why you're so anxious to exercise your mouth on the basis of mere suspicions?
"On the contrary, I'm not making any assumptions about him wanting anything
to pass, any time."
Pope calls a special meeting to consider, and pass or reject, language which will alter Catholic docrine, and you claim to have no clue what he thinks on the matter or whether he has any preferences at all.
Your arguments are getting more absurd by the hour.
"I presume "Irish priests" is a metaphor."
Generic pejorative, your close enough, want a silver star maybe? (Have to buy your own, but I'll be happy to authorize the purchase.)
"Yet you somehow think they're the ones who are gonna count when it comes
to putting pressure on these bishops they don't even know?"
They're the ones who'll show up with signs and slogans when the call is put out. Yeah, they're the ones gonna make the pressure real.
"(There is a strong theory as to their identity floatin' around, but I ain't gonna
spoonfeed it to ya)."
Waste of time and effort.
""If you're suggesting that somebody else slid that stuff in there past the Pope
without his active support, indeed his connivance, probably his conception, then
we've got ourselves a disagreement that cannot be gotten past. I'm not willing to
declare all that reporting as ‘hogwash’ just to support that unlikely proposition."
Lee C. @ Thu Oct 23, 12:45:00 am (prior page)
"So remind me again why you're so anxious to exercise your mouth on the
basis of mere suspicions?"
‘Cause you couldn't resist the temptation to keep trying to prove God was on your side even after you so quickly ran of relevant things to say. (Well, the Pope anyway, if not God himself.)
Post Script:
"And for the record, what are the changes? Do you know?"
I believe you described it as nothing short of ‘a plan to radically rewrite fundamental Catholic doctrine’. Works for me as an adequate description of the changes. (For the record, I had examined the clauses relating to homosexual relations and annulments.)
"Pope calls a special meeting to consider, and pass or reject, language which will alter Catholic docrine, and you claim to have no clue what he thinks on the matter or whether he has any preferences at all."
LMAO. The Pope has no authority whatsoever to do any such thing. Only you, the MSM, and those equally clueless about Catholic matters would ever entertain such an idea. To be sure, there were hints of such an attempt (not necessarily by the Pope) in the interim Relatio document, to the surprise of most there present. It lasted about as long as a snowball in a Baghdadi fridge during a power outage. In the absence of any other knowledge on the subject, for the time being I'm gonna give the Pope the benefit of the doubt that he's Catholic.
"They're the ones who'll show up with signs and slogans when the call is put out. Yeah, they're the ones gonna make the pressure real."
LMAO even harder. 99.99% of those who declare themselves to be in favour of such liberalisation are quite vocal over a beer, but won't lift a finger to do anything, 'cos basically they don't care. Their minds are already made up that the Catholic hierarchy are a bunch of old guys in pink suits. Doesn't matter to them what the Vatican says one way or another. The placard-wielding ones are a very much tinier bunch of radicals who, at this stage, are vastly outnumbered by conservatives. Bishops have been dealing with them for four decades now, so it's not clear what you imagine is suddenly gonna change at this juncture. I'll put it down to wishful thinking and general cluelessness on your part.
"‘Cause you couldn't resist the temptation to keep trying to prove God was on your side even after you so quickly ran of relevant things to say. (Well, the Pope anyway, if not God himself.)"
Oh dear, oh dear. That what this is about? Well then ya shouldna ought to have leapt to that conclusion on the basis of our little disagreement of Wed Oct 22, 11:37:00 pm. The Pope could be a Masonic plant for all I know. I give him the benefit of the doubt because he's the Pope. You think I don't have misgivings about the way the synod was handled whether the Pope wrote that document or not? It was a fiasco, and he's responsible whatever the level of his involvement. He doesn't get to play innocent bystander. On the other hand, I have no concerns whatever about the doctrine rewriting project -- that's not gonna happen, no way, no how.
"I believe you described it as nothing short of ‘a plan to radically rewrite fundamental Catholic doctrine’. Works for me as an adequate description of the changes."
LOL. I know you're not dumb enough to interpret my statement of Wed Oct 22, 10:46:00 pm as anything other than ironic.
"(For the record, I had examined the clauses relating to homosexual relations and annulments.)"
Good for you. Could I interest you in some additional Church documents to allay any suspicion that any Pope has the authority to do such a rewrite. (I wouldn't think so -- the dissonance with your media-informed wild imaginings would be too much, not to mention the dry old definitions of the hierarchy of papal teachings which mean that even if Francis copied next year's Apostolic Exhortation from the Liberal Manifesto it wouldn't change the doctrine -- but just thought I'd offer).
On reflection, that last post was rude and uncalled for, so I'm going to apologise for it.
It was hysterical and damn near incoherent is what it was. I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to that without coming across as wide-eyed in amazement, and whether or not I should even bother.
Post Script:
You may have intended it to be rude and uncalled for but mostly it comes across as hysterical and almost incoherent.
Word is that Kobanê will get only 200 Pershmerga, for now anyway, none of which have arrived yet, nor is a firm ETA available. I've not been able to pin down whether the bottleneck is Erdogan or possibly even the Kurds of Kobanê, who're seemingly more interested in getting heavier weapons than in getting Iraqi reinforcement (although they've expressed no similar ambivilence towards help from Turkish Kurds--which, of course, has been blocked by Turkey anyway)
Things had seemed somewhat slower in Kobanê for a few days--mostly shooting back and forth across what seemed to be temporarily semi-stable battle lines. Quite possibly the calm before the storm, as both sides ramped up for a major move. Fighting seems to have ramped up late yesterday, so maybe it's on already.
An interesting point in that article was the kidnapping of the Syrian opposition leader and his son. Someone was just talking about that scenario the other day, and how Turkey may want to re-think the open door it seems to have left propped open for ISIL operatives. Although in this case the actual kidnappers may have been criminal elements within Turkey.
I am not quite sure why the Syrian Kurds were hesitant to ask the Iraqi Kurds for assistance with fighting. That would seem to imply there might be internal issues if there were ever a united Kurdistan made up of the disparate Kurdish groups.
"I am not quite sure why the Syrian Kurds were hesitant to ask the Iraqi Kurds
for assistance with fighting."
The Syrian YDP are avowed Marxists as are the PKK (although the YDP hasn't been listed as an international terrorist organization as has happened with the PKK). The Iraqi Kurdish government is solidly capitalist and marginally democratic. Iraqi Kurdistan has managed to arrange a fairly amicable relationship with Turkey by keeping their part of a bargain which includes a promise to abstain from incitement or support of the PKK's separatist ambitions, at least militarily. This means they have been distinctly unhelpful to the YDP in the past as well.
And then, there's just the normal competitive pressures for power and influence within the Kurdish community across that section of the East.
So, yeah, one could say there are already ‘internal issues’ between them. Otherwise the Turks wouldn't be letting the Peshmerga in there in the first place, even in small numbers.
Editing error correction: "…that section of the Middle East."
Marcus,
I finished the Amnesty International piece. Very good. But I was left wondering just who they thought was going to enforce the War Crimes laws or make sure the Iraqi government actually governed in a just manner.
I also watched the video you linked to about the Soviet Union's invasion of Finnland in 1939. Also very interesting.
The fact that the Russians were so hungry that they could be diverted by the kitchen during a battle didn't come as a surprise. I have read other accounts of Russian life during that time period and the little value that was placed on the average Russian. That they did not come prepared for the winter cold or with proper food supplies just reinforces that thought.
It seems a tragedy that the Finns had to give up such a large portion of their land after having fought the Russians to a standstill with such rudimentary means as Molotov cocktails.
The whole thing seems to be a lesson in what matters in a fight, though. Having the strongest military doesn't necessarily mean automatically winning. The cause and who you are fighting for can make a big difference. We see it now in Kobani. The Kurds have been fighting with heart and passion for their town against an enemy that is fighting out of their own selfish desire to force their own beliefs on others. And they continue to do so with a little help from others.
The Syrian YDP are avowed Marxists as are the PKK (although the YDP hasn't been listed as an international terrorist organization as has happened with the PKK). The Iraqi Kurdish government is solidly capitalist and marginally democratic.
Ahhh, yes, you are right. I had totally forgotten about that. As I have said previously, this conflict with ISIL is making some strange bedfellows.
The Kurds would have some serious issues to overcome if they ever really did come close to having a united Kurdistan. I suspect unity may be more of a will-o-the-wisp dream.
"The Kurds have been fighting with heart and passion for their town…"
Their heart and passion has probably been fortified by the knowledge that the Turks have cut off their only avenue of retreat. When your options are summarily disappearing into a Turkish prison if you retreat and torture before death if you surrender, fighting to the last man becomes an easier decision. The Turks may have hoped for the slaughter of the Kobanê defenders, but they may have simply provided the incentive needed for Kobanê to hold out and ISIS actually to be defeated there. Unintended consequences it's called.
I think a lot of the YDP's fighters really don't give a damn about Marxism, but the YDP is the organization that's got the organization, and they're committed to their freedom and collective defense. They might well desert the YDP wholesale if they achieve their dream of independence. The nominal political differences might work themselves out fairly easily. (Maybe not, of course, but then again maybe.)
I noticed that the winefalcon has recently posted a claim that surreptious military supplies are again pouring into eastern Ukraine.
Huh! Looks like I've got to stop playing on the ladder and in the leaf piles and get that new post finished, Pete's put up the new wallpaper. :)
They might well desert the YDP wholesale if they achieve their dream of independence.
Might be why some of the people in power don't want too many people associating too closely with the Iraqi Kurds. Wouldn't want any of those capitalist ideas rubbing off on the average citizen.
I checked out Zeyad's new posts. I was so itching to leave a comment, but I know he'd probably just delete it.
Funny thing, I was just looking at that bombing footage this morning too.
"Wouldn't want any of those capitalist ideas rubbing off on the average citizen."
So far everybody seems safely isolated from the Peshmerga. Last I looked none of them have yet made it to Kobanê, none of them have yet made it into Turkey on the way to Kobanê.
However, Erdogan has announced that Turkey will facilitate the move of 1,300 Arab fighters from the Free Syrian Army into Kobanê to reinforce the Kurdish defenders. He just dropped that one on folks out of the wild blue. (For the Kurds in Kobanê that sounds suspiciously like an announcement that Erdogan is getting tired of waiting for them to be slaughtered and is preparing to invade from the north to help ISIS finish the job.) So far as I can tell, Erdogan doesn't actually have 1,300 Arabs available to invade Kobanê from the north, so maybe this is pretty much wishful thinking on his part. But it's something to keep an eye on.
That link I set seems to dead-end in a Wall Street Journal solicitation for a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.
Try this one if you're interested, which did get me in past the subscription page.
Syria claim to have shot down two of three planes that IS claim to have got airborne.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/22/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-jets-idUKKCN0IB1H220141022
Post a Comment