"First of the Storm" - What Does the Self-Proclaimed Islamic State Mean By This Threat?

The self-proclaimed Islamic State, in a French communique taking credit for the Paris attacks on November 13, 2015, states that this is but the:

début de la tempête

"First of the Storm."

This is actually not a very good translation of the Arabic original of their communique published in other venues. And I believe the Arabic original is where we really need to focus our interpretive energy to possibly determine their future planning.

The Arabic original of their threat is that [the Paris attacks are]:

أول الغيث (awwal al-ghayth)

A better English translation would be:

"First of the Heavy Rain."

But the important point in understanding their threat is that this phrase is a quote from a well-known Arab proverb:

أول الغيث قطرة (awwal al-ghayth qaTrah)

"The first (thing) of a heavy rain is a (single) raindrop."

This is a proverb roughly equivalent to, for instance, "Every journey must begin with the first step."

Native speakers of Arabic who hear "أول الغيث (awwal al-ghayth)" likely know the proverb and its true meaning. 

The normal word in Arabic for "storm" is:

عاصفة

(9aaSifah)

The fact that the communique does not use the normal word and instead quotes this proverb may be telling. The proverb is not focusing so much on the severity and intensity of the storm itself, but rather on the abundance of the raindrops.

If the Paris attack is but the first drop of a heavy rain shower, the communique seems not to be threatening more severe attacks. Rather, it is threatening abundant attacks, even small ones, all of which will add up to an "abundant rain."

Ciprian Calciu and Mariana Lăcrămioara Pop - May They Rest in Peace / Odihnească-se în pace

If you don't know Romanian you wouldn't have ever known about the lives of Ciprian Calciu and Mariana Lăcrămioara Pop, two Romanian citizens who died last night in the terrorist attacks in Paris. To honor their memory, I will describe them in English so that a wider world may know their story.

Ciprian Calciu (32 years old) came from Tulcea, a city near the Danube Delta in Romania. He was a graduate from the Henri Coandă Technical College.

Mariana Lăcrămioara Pop (29 years old) came from Baia Mare, a city in the North-West of Romania. She was a graduate of the Anghel Saligny Technical College. 

They had both moved to France seeking a better life and work opportunities. And there they met each other and fell in love. Ciprian was working as a mechanic for an elevator company; Mariana was working as a bartender. They have a son, one and half years old.

Last night, they went to an anniversary party with friends at the restaurant La Belle Équipe. Their son was at home, being cared for by Mariana's mother. Also at home was Mariana's eleven year old daughter from a previous marriage.

The two were enjoying the party together with their friends when terrorists from the self-proclaimed Islamic State burst in firing bullets into the space. Ciprian and Mariana, along with 17 other people, died in that attack.

They were two beautiful people working hard to build a life for themselves and their children. They did not deserve for their lives to be cut short by this senseless brutality.

France has declared itself to now be at war. And I believe we need to stand beside our oldest ally.

But in this moment, I just pray for Ciprian and Mariana in the words of our Orthodox tradition. And I invite you to pray for them and their loved ones, as well as all who have died and were injured in these attacks.

Veşnica Pomenire.
Memory Eternal.

în loc luminat, în loc cu verdeaţă, în loc de odihnă.
In a Place of Brightness, in a Place of Verdure, in a Place of Repose.

Odihnească-se în pace.
May They Rest in Peace.

Henri Co

Henri Coandă

Henri Coandă

Henri Coandă

Casus Foederis - Casus Belli : The Case for the Alliance - The Case for War

Article 5 of the NATO Treaty allows a member nation to claim that an armed attack against one member is an attack against all. This holds the implication that all members are bound to respond militarily if the offended member decided to choose that route.

This is known, in Latin as the Casus Foederis, Latin for "The Case for the Alliance." (Literally "The Case of the Alliance.")  The Alliance includes accepting responsibility to go to war if the Alliance is thus triggered into action.

The NATO treaty members were triggered to war only once, so far. The United States invoked Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks. And NATO members dutifully participated in a number of military actions in Afghanistan as a result.

As I write this post, we are watching the death toll in the Paris attacks grow by the minute. And the fact is, France has every right, just as the USA did, to invoke Article 5 at this moment. They have been grievously attacked by an entity that calls itself a State. (I'm assuming, but I'm right, that this attack will eventually be deemed ISIS related.)

The term Casus Belli is Latin for "The Case for War." (Literally "The Case of the War.") This refers to an event that is used as a pretense for embarking on a war. Julius Caesar used the migration of the Helvetian people as a Casus Belli to invade and conquer Gaul. The United States of America used the explosion of the USS Maine as a Casus Belli to start to the Spanish-American War. (Granted, it is not at all clear that Spain had anything to do with the destruction of that ship.)

The fact is, the events of this day may very well be both a Casus Belli for France and a Casus Foederis. History may look upon today as a crucial juncture in the flow of this war.

We Americans must never forget the significant assistance France rendered us in our War of Independence. Did we repay that in WWI? Certainly. Did we repay that in WWII? Certainly. Is our debt to them cancelled? Never. We are friends forever. However they choose to respond to this attack, we must stand beside them.

________________________________________________________________

If you're interested in Latin or ancient history, or even just an entertaining read, check out the time-travel thriller In Saecula Saeculorum. Click to learn more.

It's a bargain at 0.99 cents on Kindle (or affordably priced at $11.90 on paperback). 

You'll travel back to ancient Rome on a harrowing mission to save the modern world. It's the adventure of four lifetimes.

________________________________________________________________

 

When Did World War III Begin And When Will It End?

The Pope asserted today that we are, in fact, currently in World War III. Speaking in a homily at a monument to Italy's World War I dead, the Pope asserted that we are effectively in a "piecemeal" World War III even now, when you consider the range of armed conflicts that have raged for over a decade.

On reflection of this, it strikes me as obviously true. The reason we haven't previously referred to ourselves as being in World War III is that, during the Cold War, we had already reserved that name for the future and, we thought, inevitable fight between NATO and the Soviet Union.

But, based on the criteria whereby World Wars I and II were so named, it's clear the current global situation qualifies for the name World War III.

World War I was called the Great War and only retroactively termed World War I. The Time Magazine issue of June 12, 1939 first named it such, while already referring to their contemporary hostilities as World War II.

The current range of hostilities is well beyond that seen in World War I. That was essentially a war in Europe with somewhat related actions in Turkey. In the last decade, combatant nations and groups from across the globe have launched attacks in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.

One might counter the claim that we are in World War III by asserting that the disparate hostilities the world has seen are not strictly related to one another. To be honest, however, World War II was really two generally separate wars. The Nazis and the Japanese had a pact, but they were never true allies. The Japanese had to be aware that the Nazis considered them an inferior race who were just conveniently dividing the American forces. And the Nazis had a non-aggression pact with the Soviets as well, which they broke the moment they felt it was no longer in their best interest.

Further, it's not clear that the bloodshed of the last decade is completely unrelated. An argument could be made, for instance, that Russian intervention in the Ukraine was emboldened by the perception that Europe and the United States are preoccupied with concerns in the Middle East.

And so, I agree with the Pope. We are currently in what will likely someday retroactively be termed World War III. Historians will consider September 11, 2001 to be the convenient beginning of the war, though, like all wars, the flashpoint was preceded by a building of tensions. 

Less clear is how World War III will ever be declared to have come to an end someday (God willing). Perhaps it will yet evolve into a transnational conflict that could see someone eventually surrender and the world collectively decide it's done with war for a while. More likely, after what could be at least another decade, the current conflicts will have cooled and, following an interval of relative peace, the world will declare that period of conflict finally over. 

And, in that moment, people will begin to ask what World War IV will resemble.