I Am Not Making This Up!

Well, not all of it anyway, just the parts that I don't remember, so as to provide continuity to the story. That's what story tellers do, you know.

I don't think that all ancient culture have a flood myth, although I understand that some of them do. To my knowledge, none of them except the Hebrews and the Mesopotamians describe anything resembling Noah's Ark in their flood stories.

They told us at Elsdon that "ark" is an old fashioned word for a conveyance that carries something, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a boat. There are two different and dissimilar arks in the Bible, Noah's Ark, and the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was a big fancy box that the was supposed to contain a signed agreement between God and Moses. The Hebrews had to take Moses' word for the contents because nobody was allowed to look inside or even touch the box. That ark was carried off by the Assyrians when they trashed Jerusalem, and was never seen again, unless you believe those guys in Ethiopia who claim to have it stashed in a building that nobody except one caretaker is allowed to enter. The caretaker will talk to you through the fence, but he won't let you see the Ark for yourself, you just have to take his word for it. (I saw that part on PBS television. so it must be true.)

Now where was I? Oh yes, Noah's Ark is described in the Book of Genesis as being of a rectangular shape, while Utnapishtim's Boat is described in The Epic of Gilgamesh as being square. (English translations of both sources are available, so I didn't need to learn Hebrew or any other language.) I think most people would call a rectangular or square watercraft a barge although, technically, a barge is defined as any watercraft that cannot move under its own power. Neither the Bible nor Gilgamesh mentions a power source for either craft, but it is reasonable to assume that a craft of that size and shape would be too unwieldy to sail or row, which would have been the only two power sources available at the time. The purpose of both crafts was to ride out the Flood, not to sail to any particular destination so, by any definition, they were probably barges.

If Islam doesn't condone suicide, then from whence are all those Islamic suicide bombers getting their marching orders? Come to think of it, I don't remember reading anything about suicide in the Koran, but a certain amount of memory loss is normal at my age. I do remember reading about the virgins in Heaven, but I don't remember that everybody is supposed to be issued exactly 50 of them, so that may be something that somebody made up.

They didn't teach us about terrorism in the army, but they did teach us about harassment tactics, which sounds somewhat similar. What you do is launch a series of random limited attacks to demoralize the enemy, or at least make him nervous because he doesn't know where or when the next attack will hit. Harassment can be used to soften an enemy up or stall him off until you're ready to launch a more effective action. Since they are called "terrorists", I assume that what the Islamists are trying to do is spread terror among the people. This might be in preparation for a more concerted action, or it may be that it's all they will ever be capable of. One theory that I read about somewhere is that they are trying to provoke an all out war between Muslims and everybody else, which would be consistent with their version of the Apocalypse scenario. Then again, they seem to be fighting among themselves at least as much as they are fighting against the good guys, so go figure. If I was in charge, I'm not sure what I would do differently. The reactionary in me says to just kill them all and let Allah sort them out, but the old divide and conquer tactic can also be effective. One way or another, those people need to be taught a lesson and put in their place, and I don't see that happening any time soon.