Scar
Monday, October
8, 2007
Scavenger birds along the highways of the
Most superhighways today have reinforced concrete barriers
that ensure that vehicles traveling at very high rates of speed do not cross
into oncoming traffic. If such barriers did not exist, there would be many
fatalities on these highways. The barriers however do create problems for the
local wildlife that enters the roadway. A stray raccoon, or possum, or family
cat or dog that wanders onto such a highway will certainly encounter the
concrete barrier and the scavenger birds waiting patiently in the trees along
the modern gaming trail become jittery because they know another harvest is
about to take place. To the animals attempting to navigate the modern gaming
trail it is nothing more than a trap from which there is no escape. When
vehicles bear down upon them, their fate is sealed.
The modern gaming trail then makes it easier for
scavengers and birds of prey to hunt because the hunting is really done for
them. When this occurs, the population of scavenger birds increases because
none know any hunger or want or need. They merely have to sit in the trees
alongside the roadway and wait for their next meal to be hunted for them.
But what if the bird population that was becoming larger
and more prevalent along the highway began to bother those that use the roads
for transportation? Crows and ravens, for example, aren’t the prettiest
of birds. Their contribution to the ecosystem is vital, but they have black
feathers and even darker eyes, and a lot of folks are bothered by them. If the
bird populations of scavengers were to become too numerous, it would be
understandable for someone to launch a study about such population growth.
Merely seeing the birds would convince those hostile to them that such a study
needed to take place and when the bird populations were scientifically measured
then the final report would just reflect what those hostile to them already wanted
to hear.
Something would then have to be done about those
populations—a predator would have to be introduced.
Enter Scar, a name that I have given to a red hawk that
preys with impunity upon such birds nearby my residence. I first saw Scar about
seven months ago when she was fishing in a creek. At other times she hunts blue
jay families, crows, pigeons, doves and any other unsuspecting bird in the
vicinity of her territory. Scar was introduced into my neighborhood by the same
scientists that studied the bird populations and concluded something had to be
done to deal with their unsightly and annoying congregations and overpopulation.
Scar is a remarkable huntress. She will fly directly over
me at less than twenty feet with a wing span that must be at least four and one
half feet across. You can actually hear her cutting through the air as she
hunts. When Scar makes her rounds, the birds that she preys upon sound loudly
in warning and they all rush to the nearest tree line in search of safety in
overwhelming fear. Scar has no natural predator of her own unless it is a human
predator armed with a shotgun. Her predilection to flying so closely over me
from time to time demonstrates that she has never encountered a predator of her
own.
In communities where there is an abundance of unwanted
domesticated cats, the solution for that was worked out as well. Introducing
foxes in such communities by the dozens or more deals with the overpopulation
problem involving felines. The killing naturally takes place at night when
liberal thinkers are sound asleep in their beds, while Scar hunts the crows and
ravens and other birds during the day. There is a methodical approach to
introducing predators into the human urban ecosystem. The humans that think
these things up must be congratulating themselves for their efficiency.
Scar’s mere presence terrorizes every bird in the
neighborhood and surrounding community, an area of many square miles. Merciless
and cunning, she strikes fear into the hearts of her fellow animals with about
as much tenacity as a terrorist detonating a Shahid suicide belt in a crowded
supermarket. But Scar can be seen and detected while the human terrorist cannot
be.
If Scar were a soldier she would be easily identifiable.
In lawful war, soldiers are identified by the uniforms that they wear and each
uniform has sewn into it a flag of the nation-state that the soldier is
representing in that war. When a soldier goes to war, there is no confusion
whatsoever about the definition of the soldier, both visually and by cause of
action.
With terror and terrorism, the terrorist is not wearing a
uniform that contains an easily identifiable flag of a legitimate nation-state
in the global community. The terrorist claims no nation-state attachment, and
while as dangerous as Scar is to other birds, the terrorist strikes fear into
the hearts of unsuspecting human populations.
That is what terror is. Men have much to learn through the
observing of nature.
Christopher
Farmer
MS,
National Security
What does
Scar teach us about terrorism?
Your
donations keep OPORD Analytical in business. Please 
using our
convenient donation form. Thank you!
Copyright
© 2006 - 2008 OPORD Analytical. All Rights Reserved.