Mit Kanonen auf Spatzen
by Volker Weber
Allegedly on CNN:
Nicholson: "Oh no, they are destroying Baghdad ... and ..."
Moderator: "Okay Mike!"
Nicholson: "... and they ..."
Moderator: "Okay Mike that's all!!"
Analyst: "This combinated attack, it's a symphony, lead by a conductor".
Interfax has this comment:
"The latest missile and bomb strike against Baghdad by the anti- Iraqi coalition is the most intensive one for the entire period of human wars for the number of charges fired per unit of time," Marshal Yevgeny Shaposhnikov, told Interfax.The attack was more intensive than "massed strikes by allied air forces against German cities during World War II, including Dresden."
"As a way of achieving military objectives, such strikes make absolutely no sense," Shaposhnikov said.
In case you are not aware of what happened in Dresden read this.
Comments
Well, the quote about the destruction of Baghdad seems to be genuine, at least coporate media are using it, too:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12766092&method=full&siteid=50143
(Search for "they are")
However, Michael Nicholson works for ITV not CNN, and as yet there's nothing reported about the alleged reaction of the studio personnel.
Shock 'n Awe
Shekinah (Hebrew): "the manifestation of the presence of God"
Bush is an religious lunatic
It's most probably a coincidence. Even though the US traditionally have close ties to Israel, the current government has a conservative Christian background. so there's no reason they'd allude to Hebrew terms in their campaign names.
And if this double meaning was supposed to be noticed by the Iraqi people, they'd have used Arab terms, because most Iraqis will either not understand Hebrew at all, or if they do, they'll be offendend, which would make them less likely to defect and more likely to fight back. (Not the right tactic if you're trying to get a war done quickly.)
So I think it's just, once again, an unfortunate blunder out of pure ignorance - just like Bush's usage of the word "crusade" after 9/11, which didn't go very well with the Islamic world.
Found some more (and rather distressing) information about the origins of "Shock and Awe" in this Article from an Egyptian newspaper:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/630/fr1.htm
-----
"Shock and Awe", as American journalist Sandy Tolan explains in this issue, is the brainchild of Harlan Ullman, veteran military strategist and co-author of the 1996 book Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance. The doctrine recommends "nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction" to achieve an "overwhelming level of shock and awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on."
The doctrine was inspired by the impact of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and "the comatose and glazed expressions of survivors of the great bombardments of World War I and the attendant horrors and death of trench warfare."
Another "Coincidence":
The new bomb MOAB:
http://www.execulink.com/~wblank/moab.htm
"Despite their unfortunate beginning, the descendants of Moab became quite numerous and powerful, and were often connected to Bible History (e.g. Numbers 22:3-14, Judges 3:30, 2 Samuel 8:2, Jeremiah 48:11-13). Good and righteous Ruth was a Moabite (Ruth 1:4), and her descendants, through her great-grandson King David (Ruth 4:13-22), formed one of the lines from which Jesus Christ was descended. (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38)
The land of Moab is located east of The Jordan River and The Dead Sea, and south of the Arnon (Numbers 21:10-15). Today, Moab is within the Kingdom of Jordan.
It was in the Plains of Moab, opposite Jericho (Numbers 22:1, 26:63, Joshua 13:32), that the Israelites made their last encampment before they entered the Promised Land after their Wilderness Journey -"
Hi Volker,
do you have the source of this CNN qoute? Who transcribed that dialogue? What is the context? The only source I found on the web is a blog on http://www.medien-kontor.de/logbuch/2003_03_01_archive.html#91137318. However, that blog is too biased to be trusted without additional proof.
@Andreas: I saw this live and found it quite strange. I wouldn't want to take an oath on the exact wording though.
