Article

2005-12-22 Home Front: WoT

The Course of History is Changed - (Well worth the read)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-12-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11."

Surely they did that the day after 911.

Good article, hope its true, it would obviously change the whole face of the conflict.

Posted by Shistos Shistadogaloo UK 2005-12-22 05:03|| 2005-12-22 05:03|| Front Page Top

#2 "Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."

Bang on..

Posted by Shistos Shistadogaloo UK 2005-12-22 05:06|| 2005-12-22 05:06|| Front Page Top

#3 Amen, SS.

This was posted here on RB on 12/15 - from the original FrontPageMag article, thanks to SPo'D / MSN-b, but only Zenster seems to have read it and grasped its significance at the time. AttaBoy, Zen, lol!

I wanted to post it but couldn't get to RB at the time, so I begged for help - and SPo'd helped a poor schmuck out - Thx, SPo'D!

And Thank You B-Man (!!!) for giving it more light!

It's huge. It's bigger than big. It's officials finally sticking their noses under the blind-leading-the-PC-blindered PC tent-flap and seeing the fucking Truthâ¢. Check out the FPMag article, too.

Pray that it spreads. I am still worried that institutionalized PCism is going to get (many) more of us killed, but this offers a ray of hope.

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 06:12|| 2005-12-22 06:12|| Front Page Top

#4 Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations

Pfft. Islamofascism is no more "stateless" than Marxism-Leninism was in the 20th century. Sure, as an ideology it's not *entirely* dependent on states -- but then again neither was communism. I'd like to find the time one day to examine the possible parallels between Che Guevara and Osama Bin Laden.

The main difference is that since communism promised a paradise-on-earth, its failure to deliver was in a couple decades obvious for everyone to see. Islamofascism promises an afterlife paradise which is unfortunately harder to disprove.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-12-22 06:18|| 2005-12-22 06:18|| Front Page Top

#5 Quick, Ethel, I need my pills!

I agree wholeheartedly, Aris.

There are these Mad Mullahs camped out on the Eastern side of "The Gulf" and there's this little 40km-wide strip of land running along the Western side that...

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 06:25|| 2005-12-22 06:25|| Front Page Top

#6 PrtScrn/SysRq

Posted by Leon Clavin 2005-12-22 07:18|| 2005-12-22 07:18|| Front Page Top

#7 I saw the article on the 15th but frankly I think it is being oversold.

Just because one or two offices in DOD have a clue doesn't mean the DOD does as a whole. There are still legends of Islamic apologists out there lavishly praising Moslems when they emit minor concessions to humanistic thoughts.

As far as Aris's point, many Communists still believe in Marxism for a number of reason (e.g., they think Stalin screwed up, they think it was abolished before the classless society could arise, etc.).

Posted by mhw 2005-12-22 08:43|| 2005-12-22 08:43|| Front Page Top

#8 Aris - I'm hearing your point about the lure of Big Mo's Brothel, rather than revolution in the here and now. The trick is to educate the mmm's, who in actuality are only a little bit worse than the PC liberals in that they almost believe that the ROP is an ROP. A summary run down on the facts of the book and its profit usually works on those not suffering with excessive cognitive dissonance.

.com - dont worry, I've been making sure people know about the importance of this here in the UK. Anyone who knows the Burg will testify, atheists and christians can work together on this;
SPIRITUAL WARFARE!!!
Buffy eat yer heart out

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2005-12-22 08:54|| 2005-12-22 08:54|| Front Page Top

#9 mhw - Now that saddens me. I hope you're wrong, heh.

Adm AA - Lol - Thx - and you're right, of course! Okay, I'll, um, go help Buffy with the, uh, heart thingy, heh.

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 08:59|| 2005-12-22 08:59|| Front Page Top

#10 Aris, glad to see you are using your faculties, as god intended ;-)

As for the article...
It's a start, but to get the message through wide and far may take quite a few years. A tiny speck of light piercing through a breach in the PC wall.

I was hoping to find out how it would come to pass that muslims would start leaving Islam in droves, beyond generalities and promises, but I don't see any supporting analysis presented. I think it may be a lot slower than Sina's wishfull thinking. Although a great majority of muslims are rather nominal, it would seem to me that in order to get them out of the prison of the religion, some form of replacement has to take place. If that would be the case, it better be good (as in well done, thorough substitute that would fill the void). It is not possible to make almost a billion people secularists overnight.

Posted by twobyfour 2005-12-22 09:00|| 2005-12-22 09:00|| Front Page Top

#11 Hey Aris, be careful with talk like that. You don't want .com's relatives to hit you with a wrongful death suit. 8^)

I agree with you completely. The one thing that is terribly hard for the West to fight in these ideological wars is that the underlying ideology of the West is based on individual freedom and responsibility. In other words life is what you make it, paradise or hell. Islam, Communism, et. al. promise a shining path devoid of any need for personal effort. Just follow the bouncing ball (or latest dictator) to the promised land.

Hard to fight that with the old "keep your nose to the grindstone and you'll eventually make it" schtick.

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2005-12-22 09:02|| 2005-12-22 09:02|| Front Page Top

#12 Pfft. Islamofascism is no more "stateless" than Marxism-Leninism

Have to agree with Aris on that one. While I'm ranting, an unrelated comment. Rantburg's bigjim-ky posted a tasteless rant yesterday, his right I'd say. One of the Moderators quickly pulled it off. I commented on the deletion and was lectured soundly, no problem, I'll still have arss wen they have no teeth. My thanks all for the primer on the Rantburg hierarchy, moderators, minders, medlers, whingeing(ers) whatever that was, et al. As a Burg novice I was totally clueless to the pecking order. I thought the fellows comment was, like a few others I've seen here, tactless and indeed distasteful. I suspect a few would judge some of my commentary as such as well. I would only ask (just asking, please no one give birth to a bloody Holstein) that if we're indeed supportive of free speech, and I'm sure most are, then lets practice what we preach. To do otherwise is a bit, well hypocritical. If this retort means the firing squad for me, then "shoot straight you bastards!"

Posted by Besoeker 2005-12-22 09:05|| 2005-12-22 09:05|| Front Page Top

#13 Duck, B-Man! Lol.

AlanC - Lol.

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 09:14|| 2005-12-22 09:14|| Front Page Top

#14 Besoeker, has to be seen, but I think you've committed a thread hijacking. ;-P

I have no idea about pecking order here and I care diddly squat. That said, I am aware that mods are only human. Been there, done that, it's not an easy job. Slack necessary.

if we're indeed supportive of free speech, and I'm sure most are, then lets practice what we preach.

There are tradeoffs. To keep the noise protion of the info/noice equation low, sometimes it may be necessary to commit a little intervention. Since it is rather infrequent, I'd reckon RB is doing rather well in that regard. Of course, this is my, entirely biased, opinion.

Now, back to thread...cary on... ;-)

Posted by twobyfour 2005-12-22 09:23|| 2005-12-22 09:23|| Front Page Top

#15 carry on. PIMF. (will write it 100 times on a sheet of paper to preserve bandwidth).

Posted by twobyfour 2005-12-22 09:25|| 2005-12-22 09:25|| Front Page Top

#16 Well said 2x4, end of discussion.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-12-22 09:27|| 2005-12-22 09:27|| Front Page Top

#17 2x4 - Lol. So, um, how're ya gonna top - or even equal - 72 nubile virginians to a bunch of incredibly sex-starved misogynists?

Wooo. Tough one, methinks. When you think about it, this is prolly Reason #1 why Little Mo was so successful peddling (There sure is lots of ped-stuff in Islam, isn't there?) this TFBS* ideology. That his Shari'a legacy made it even worse, amplifying the very worst aspects of the condition you might say, is gonna make it a tall order. Imagine how they'll feel if all the things denied them suddenly became okie-dokie... If you were a 35 yr old Muzzy virginian yourownself, exceptin' the occasional Starbucks encounter taken to the mall parking lot or some "shepherd time", heh, and suddenly it was allowed to smile at that pretty veil, er, woman, and talk to her and find out if you both liked long walks on the beach 'n everything, and she was amenable, and "I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes." and, well, how would you feel?

I'm just askin'. :-)

*TFBS - Totally Fucking BullShit

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 09:42|| 2005-12-22 09:42|| Front Page Top

#18 .com, shhhh, itsa secret. Three words, deux ex machina. Can't say no more.

(...The prototype is still rather bulky, but attempts are being made to reduce it to a simple head set. The vergins? Yea, just like the real thing. and some translucency is added by the modeling software...)

Posted by twobyfour 2005-12-22 09:50|| 2005-12-22 09:50|| Front Page Top

#19 Acckkkk! I'm agreeing with Aris? Imposter! Who are you and what did you do with the real Aris? Nevermind - this one is better

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-22 09:54|| 2005-12-22 09:54|| Front Page Top

#20 Like a virgin, ooh, ooh!

Posted by Madona 2005-12-22 09:54|| 2005-12-22 09:54|| Front Page Top

#21 Just because one or two offices in DOD have a clue doesn't mean the DOD does as a whole.

Be VERY careful what you ask for. One of the key pillars of our professional military is a carefully developed and enforced a-political culture. Yes, most military have political and religious beliefs -- ones they hold strongly, perhaps more strongly than most civilians.

But as an organization, the military is deliberately insulated from political stances -- and for good reason.

If you're not sure why that's so, go back to 1802 and the founding of West Point as a *national* academy for a *national* army that transcended state religions (some of which were still Established then) and state identities.

Yes, the issue of Islam as an ideology is an important one. But the officers I know are very wary of being pulled into taking political and religious stances *officially* - they fear the destructive effects on the Army and other services and are right IMO to do so.

It's a tough balancing act, because they also must identify and respond to the real threat. Which is what they are trying to do. Don't kid yourself -- as *individuals* there's a lot of recognition of the problem. But it takes it up a whole nuther level to do this officially.

Posted by lotp 2005-12-22 10:28|| 2005-12-22 10:28|| Front Page Top

#22 "I'd like to find the time one day to examine the possible parallels between Che Guevara and Osama Bin Laden."
Hopefully, Aris, the thing they have most in common is that they are both dead.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-22 10:30|| 2005-12-22 10:30|| Front Page Top

#23 One of the main stumbling points to educating the military/ intelligence /law enforcement communities about Islam is that they always invite Wahhabi-approved Islamist apologists to "educate" them.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-12-22 11:10|| 2005-12-22 11:10|| Front Page Top

#24 It must be agree_with_Aris_day, becuase I was going to make the same point to start this thread (although with a somewhat different underlying rationale) and he is dead right.

The main problem with Islam is that it is a state religion, because it claims an absolute monopoly of religous belief and there is no role for individual consience.

And as far as 'nominal muslims' are concerned, in my experience of a few, and I am fairly sure they were representative. You are either a practicsing believer or an apostate/unbeliever. There aint no middle ground.

The writers of the article are guilty of applying western concepts of religion to islam and they simply don't apply. The comparison with communisms is apt.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2005-12-22 11:14|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2005-12-22 11:14|| Front Page Top

#25 First, no I'm not looking for a fight - just expressing my opinion, but I think the PCism which the Pentagon has displayed up until now is the non-reality-based political stance, not the fact that they are finally getting it right and, I presume at some point, adjusting accordingly.

Just my take, lotp.

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 11:17|| 2005-12-22 11:17|| Front Page Top

#26 ...to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical...

I'll be waiting for the answer.

Posted by Javiter Ulavick3397 2005-12-22 11:20|| 2005-12-22 11:20|| Front Page Top

#27 These so-called stateless enemies are not really stateless. States support them, states enable them, states give them safe harbor. States, meaning governments, authorities, dictators, whatever. These enemies produce nothing, so they depend upon the resources of others, and they need lots of resources in the form of money.

And that is where Saudi Arabia and Iran come in. They have the oil. We have the money. We get the oil, and they get the money. They money goes to our enemies. Follow the money. Everything else is dealing with the symptoms.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-12-22 11:23|| 2005-12-22 11:23|| Front Page Top

#28 Alaska Paul:

Didnt you know, according to Bush supporters, that OIL has nothing to do with the War On Terror?

Posted by Dirk Diggler 2005-12-22 11:33|| 2005-12-22 11:33|| Front Page Top

#29 Okay, Dirk, I have a compromise so we can all get along here... we'll just admit that it's all about OIL and take the OIL without paying for it. There's plenty of historical precedent. Would that make you happy? Now just go out and warm up your SUV for about 20 minutes before you leave for lunch.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-22 12:02|| 2005-12-22 12:02|| Front Page Top

#30 Seriously, Dirk, did you hear Osama say that 9/11 was all about OIL? No. Did Saddam rattle sabres, impede U.N. inspectors, and violate no-fly zones all for OIL? No. Did the London Tube bombers care about OIL? No. If I were you -- and people wanted to kill me and eliminate my culture and civilization -- I'd be mighty careful about determining their motives. That's what this thread is about, not Bush bashing.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-22 12:08|| 2005-12-22 12:08|| Front Page Top

#31 I dunno if Dirk (You're 15 min are up, too - I saw the movie, you've had your fun, lol.) is funnin' or if it's a Kool Aid Kiddie.

Darrell - here's your one-stop, one-size-fits-all, instant response to the bona-fide Moonbat posters, lol.

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 12:10|| 2005-12-22 12:10|| Front Page Top

#32 Darrell:

I suggest you go back and read post#27 by Alaska Paul. Why dont you comment on what he said there?
That's all I was doing.

Posted by Dirk Diggler 2005-12-22 12:14|| 2005-12-22 12:14|| Front Page Top

#33 Lol, it is a KAK!

Must be off for Christmas! I wonder if that is bothersome to its little Moonbat antennae, too, lol.

Ah, where to begin with one so far behind the curve...

I know - ignore it cuz there's not enough bandwidth in the known Universe to bring it up to speed, lol.

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 12:18|| 2005-12-22 12:18|| Front Page Top

#34 Thank you, .com! Let me tell you a true story...

I have three teenagers. Two have IQs around 140 and one has an IQ around 80. For years I tried "enrichment" to close the "smarts" gap a bit, but every time I turned around my "80" would go back to killing time and exhibiting minimal curiosity about anything. So now I have just accepted that some people are content to be ignorant and there's not much you can do to change them. You just need to love them and find them a place they can be productive in their own way.

I just forgot to apply that to Dirk. Maybe we can find him some landscaping work after the fence is finished.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-22 12:38|| 2005-12-22 12:38|| Front Page Top

#35 Lol, Darrell - perfect!

Posted by .com 2005-12-22 12:56|| 2005-12-22 12:56|| Front Page Top

#36 I'm not going to discuss at length my recent visit to the vatican in my response to this article, nor will I go into depth my analysis of Judaism as a form of governance.

However I will say that most religion has largely existed as a state function and vise versa since the beginnings of organized human interactions.

Whatever else I may say is my opinion, but I believe that any assumption that the US will go to war with Islam is folly.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-22 13:05|| 2005-12-22 13:05|| Front Page Top

#37 I really want to agree with you, lotp, and for years I did. But I altered one word and tried out your statement again:

"Yes, the issue of Nazism as an ideology is an important one. But the officers I know are very wary of being pulled into taking political and religious stances *officially* - they fear the destructive effects on the Army and other services and are right IMO to do so."

The difference today is that Islam has the imprimatur of being a religion. Whether it deserves that status is a debate that sorely needs to occur. How can we expect to win if we don't even have the balls to judge the enemy?

Posted by ST 2005-12-22 13:42|| 2005-12-22 13:42|| Front Page Top

#38 EP - You may be right, the US may not be able to go to war with Islam but it certainly can't win a war with "terror". We are no good at winning wars that don't have a definable enemy. Take the longest and most expensive war ever - Johnson's "war on poverty". $9 trillion and counting. Or the "war on drugs". The war on "terror" is not winnable. "Terror" is a feeling and can only be managed. We need to drop the PC crap already and define the enemy. The war against "radical islamists" makes more sense. These are people and we can find them and deal with them. The war against "radical islamists and states that support them" is even better.

.com - thanks for the link to the frontpagemag article. It's a good read. If newspapers did their jobs articles and discussions like this would go on everywhere.

Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2005-12-22 14:21|| 2005-12-22 14:21|| Front Page Top

#39 "Know thy enemy"

Sun Tzu (correct?)

Maybe we are finally breaking through. And, I imagine (ref: mhw #7) that many are right here about individuals in the services of our country TRULY recognize our enemy, they just can't officially state it. .com and many others here have actually been to the ME and (I haven't personally, but hope to 1 day when they open Walt Disney World in Qom, Iran) it truly does sound like it's a lock, stock and barrel type of "religion." When you go to war over there twice (in 1 country) and protect Muslims in another country within the last decade, I imagine that a lot of our troops bring home the truth of what they saw "over there", and it doesn't sound pretty.

Posted by BA 2005-12-22 14:29|| 2005-12-22 14:29|| Front Page Top

#40 Sorry, goofed up that 2nd sentence. Should be
"And, I imagine (ref: mhw #7) that many individuals who serve our country TRULY...." Best summary of this is Daniel Pipes in my mind.

"Terror" = Tactic
"Radical Islamists" = Enemy (and like IP states, I'd add the countries that support them).

Posted by BA 2005-12-22 14:32|| 2005-12-22 14:32|| Front Page Top

#41 IP,

You're preaching to the choir.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-22 16:48|| 2005-12-22 16:48|| Front Page Top

#42 This was posted here on RB on 12/15 - from the original FrontPageMag article, thanks to SPo'D / MSN-b, but only Zenster seems to have read it and grasped its significance at the time. AttaBoy, Zen, lol!

Thank you, .com. We all need to remember that even dwarves started out small. If this is the long awaited sea change in American military thinking, it could not happen a minute sooner. That it is four years overdue simply boggles the mind.

If history has one single lesson to teach, it is that silence is consent. Somehow, as with many other basic laws of reality, Islam deems itself immune to this ancient axiom. The thundering silence of Islam with respect to denouncing and actively fighting radicalism within its ranks condemns it outright.

If Muslims refuse to criticize radical Muslims solely out of a misplaced sense of solidarity, then that solidarity must be interpreted as the formation of a monolithic stance. WE SIMPLY HAVE NO CHOICE. There is no time to carefully winnow out the bad seeds from amongst the vast ranks of this political ideology masquerading as a religion. Our own reluctance to do so is being used against us in a most cruel and calculating fashion.

We must return the favor in kind and put all Islam on notice that housecleaning is its own obligation and any failure to immediately do so will cause their entire faith to be adjudged as hostile. For Muslims to assume that we infidels will solve their problems for them and do so in an exceptionally diligent or sensitive fashion is sheer lunacy. We owe Islam no such favor and, to date, the repayment received for our leniancy has been nothing but senseless loss of human life.

Islam must be put on notice that any further acquiescence to their radical brethern's visions of genocide will result in a holocaust for their own believers. That Islamists seek a double holocaust, one for the Jews and another Global Cultural Holocaust for all infidels should be enough to make clear how important it is that Muslims be made aware that their entire religion's continued existence hinges upon their authentic and genuine renouncement of violent conversion and jihad. Nothing less is satisfactory, especially in light of how Islam sanctions the most vile forms of lying in the name of saving itself.

Posted by Zenster 2005-12-22 18:39|| 2005-12-22 18:39|| Front Page Top

#43 I think the need to examine Islam from a strategic level is a good move. #39 nailed it: know thine enemy.

Black Jack Pershing got into their heads and figured out what would freak out the Islamists of his day. The religion changed via fatwa in order to ensure military supremacy, which implies Islam is being used as a tool rather than as a reason. However, the average worshipper does not regard themselves as a nut or bolt to be adjusted by his tool/religion, so there may be hope a strategic analysis that determines that the Imams are the on/off switch.

Determining the right switch is, however, only half the battle: We have a military supervised by PC afflicted civilians who may ignore the switch or forbid that it be effectively flipped off.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-12-22 20:35|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-12-22 20:35|| Front Page Top

#44 I have advocated calling things by their correct names for a long time. Religion of Peace? Pfeh. The Koran calls for violent jihad. The Islamofacists have a valid interpretation of their book. There are other interpretations also, but I believe that the Islamists represent the Islamic Reformation.

When I saw this article on 12/15 on Frontpage, I hoped that it indicated that part of our leadership is beginning to see that we are in a war of civilizations - whether we like it or not. The PCism that "protects" our military from political stances will only hold up for so long. Most commenters here know know the history of the War in the Pacific - probably better than I. Each time the Japanese comitted a new atrocity, our men escalated also. Was it understandable? Yes. Was it good? No. Was it right? I don't know.

Zenster and .com state it very well. The Muslim world will have to sort itself out. The protests against Zarqawi in Jordan should not give Muslims a break. They might deserve a break when they begin to protest against and turn in their extremists when they blow up non-Muslims. I pray that this will happen, because if it doesn't, we will find ourselves in the position of Crusaders at Albi in southern France: "Kill them all, let God sort them out."

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2005-12-22 20:45|| 2005-12-22 20:45|| Front Page Top

#45 Hi, Left Angle, aka Dirk D.

Posted by lotp 2005-12-22 21:19|| 2005-12-22 21:19|| Front Page Top

#46 Figures.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-22 21:28|| 2005-12-22 21:28|| Front Page Top

#47 Just a reminder: what Fred gives us here at Rantburg is not Freedom to Say Anything We Want. Rather, it is freedom to comment and post articles within the constraints permitted by Fred and his designated moderators (not a job I'd take even if I had to pay taxes on the the salary -- they spend half their time just taking out the spammers!). Other than that I am not aware of any hierarchy, just those who have established their bone fides over time, and those who haven't yet. And, of course, trolls of varying ability. ;-) Hope that helps, Besoeker, et al.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-12-23 00:01|| 2005-12-23 00:01|| Front Page Top

00:01 trailing wife
23:46 trailing wife
23:38 trailing wife
23:19 trailing wife
23:11 trailing wife
23:06 trailing wife
23:03 .com
22:57 Frank G
22:56 Barbara Skolaut
22:55 Frank G
22:54 Shieldwolf
22:54 Frank G
22:51 Frank G
22:48 trailing wife
22:46 john
22:44 ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding
22:40 trailing wife
22:31 Chuck
22:28 Silentbrick
21:55 .com
21:44 Besoeker
21:35 JAB
21:35 Besoeker
21:28 Darrell