MDA’s Full Circle-in-Circle Crescent Geometry Used On Several Jihadist Insignias [Reader Post]

By 87 Comments 1,863 views

Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, insists that the striking similarity between MDA’s website logo and Obama’s campaign logo is just coincidence. He says the MDA logo was created for a recruiting campaign that preceded the 2008 election, which is confirmed by an October 2008 recruiting ad in MIT’s campus newspaper. There it is on page 17 (large PDF warning), MDA’s Obama-esque configuration of circles and crescents, complete with waves of grain:



MDA logo, left. Circles, crescents, and red-and-white waves of grain (or rocket exhaust), just like Obama’s logo.

The MIT ad means that the MDA logo is not a product of the Obama administration, but that doesn’t mean it is not an offshoot of the Obama logo, which was introduced in early 2007. Unless the MDA recruiting campaign goes back that far, the MDA design could still have been influenced by Obama’s design, or directly created by an Obama supporter. It’s hard to believe it wasn’t, but unless Obama’s own people had some inside influence with the logo designers at TMPgovernment (not an impossibility) any intentional similarity would be a product of the designers’ own initiative, not the Obama team’s orchestration. Big deal. Obama can’t help what his supporters do.

More worrisome is how a branch of the Department of Defense can overlook the overt Islamic symbol shape

The classic Islamic crescent (based on later flags of the Ottoman Empire) is defined by its circular inner and outer arcs. Contrast this to a crescent moon, which has an elliptical inner arc (when projected onto two dimensions). Several jihadist organizations use a full circle-in-circle crescent in their insignias, just like the one in the MDA logo.

Here is the insignia of The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine:

Similar insignias are used by Hamas:

by the Islamic Palestine Block:

and by the Muslim American Society, which was created by the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of al Qaeda) in 1928:

As with the Missile Defense Agency logo, the inner circle in the MAS logo represents the earth. The 360° green crescent formed by the space between the two circles represents Islamic domination of the planet. This Islamic triumphalism is also the depicted on the Hezbollah flag, which uses 2/3rds of of the outline of a globe to create an Islamic crescent covering the more typical 2/3rds of a circle of arc:

It is unclear what the blue crescent formed by the inner and outer circles of the MDA logo is supposed to represent. It’s not a missile trajectory (that’s in red), and if it were supposed to be atmosphere, the thicker side would be the near side (as defined by the missile trajectory). All we are left with is the geometric similarity to the jihadi insignias.

Were concerns about the Islamic shaped crescent suppressed as anti-Muslim bigotry?

Friend vs. foe identification is as basic as military fundamentals get. Every soldier is drilled on every available identifier, over and over and over, and it never stops. It is simply inconceivable that our Defense Department could employ an Islamic symbol shape–in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists–and not be aware of it.

The question is how the inevitable recognition of the Islamic symbol shapes got suppressed. Did those who recognized the Islamic crescent self-censor from fear of being branded an anti-Muslim bigot, like those who remained quiet about Nidal Hasan’s violent Islamic diatribes (enabling the Fort Hood massacre), or did they raise their concerns and were they attacked, as Tom Burnett Sr. has been attacked (“Efforts to sully Flight 93 memorial deserve scorn“) for protesting the Park Service’s decision to plant a giant Islamic-shaped crescent atop his son’s grave?

The difference is that Flight 93 Memorial architect Paul Murdoch saturated his Crescent of Embrace design with endless proof of terrorist memorializing intent. Not only does the giant crescent point to Mecca (making it a mihrab, the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built) but the design is replete with elaborately repeated Mecca orientations.

If only I would stop exposing the Mecca-oriented crescents, a silly Irishman recently advised, nobody would know and no harm would be done. It is only because I am doing the bad man’s work for him, you see, that the opportunity for mischief arises.

This is exactly what our foolish elites say about Islam. Don’t point out that Osama Bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist or you will just convince the other orthodox Muslims that they should follow him, as if they don’t already know their own religion. We tried this strategy at Fort Hood and we all know the result. We have been squeezing our eyes wide shut for forty years, until we are on the verge of allowing Islamic suicide bombers to get nuclear weapons.

What graver symbol of our peril could there be than a DOD logo with the exact peculiar geometry of a jihadist insignia?

FOIA request has been submitted

I asked the Missile Defense Agency’s FOIA officers to please send me whatever records they have–documents, emails, minutes–where the suitability of the crescent logo is discussed.

Hopefully somebody committed their qualms to writing, spurring enough cloud-chamber reactions to reveal the mechanisms of suppression that set those qualms aside. Very likely there was no opposition, only self-censorship, and it will turn out that an independent jihadi was left free to simply insert an Islamist logo onto the MDA website, just like the sound engineer who inserted “Islam is the light” onto the voice track of Mattel’s Cuddle & Coo doll.

Alternatively, the TPMgovernment designer who composed the MDA’s crescent logo could be completely ignorant and have no idea he was channeling Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. After all, it is the military that is supposed to recognize the insignias of the enemy. If our military is intentionally asleep at the wheel, don’t expect an artsy civilian to do their oversight for them.

If the TPMgovernment designer was/is a simple lefty Obamaton (pretty common amongst artsy civilians) he/she/it might have been aware of the Islamic symbol shape, yet and thought it added a nice touch of multi-culturalism. (I have asked for the designers names too. Pretty sure I won’t get them, but if there are any TPMgovernment employees or ex-employees who know how this happened, please speak up.)

If Obama’s people did somehow exercise direct influence, then the Washington Times criticism applies. Recasting the symbols of the United States to reflect Obama’s personal ensign is, well, call it the ultimate rejection of bipartisanship, but Obama is known to have gone down this road before. Remember this Obamanation:

As for what the MDA needs to do, it really doesn’t matter whether their website logo was done by a free-lance Obamaton, a free-lance jihadi, by direct influence, or by simple accident. Symbols of the American military must not share the peculiar geometry of the symbols of our terror war enemies. Ask any PFC. The MDA logo needs to be changed.

87 Responses to “MDA’s Full Circle-in-Circle Crescent Geometry Used On Several Jihadist Insignias [Reader Post]”

  1. 76

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    Oh my…. billy bob sez:

    And don’t try the “you need a photo i.d. to cash a check or get on an airplane” b.s. either. Because it is simply preposterous to compare private sector rules for a commercial transaction with a governmental requirement that you show an i.d. before you are allowed to exercise the constitutional right to vote. And, in addition, you do NOT need a photo i.d. to fly on a plane. That is a complete myth.

    Hum… rights, you say? Seems the courts consider traveling “.. a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all” per U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966).

    The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. In Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, invalidating [383 U.S. 745, 758] a Nevada tax on every person leaving the State by common carrier, the Court took as its guide the statement of Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492:

    “For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.”

    Yet the TSA says this, per your link:

    Effective June 21, 2008, adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID that contains the following: name, date of birth, gender, expiration date and a tamper-resistant feature in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight.

    Passengers who do not or cannot present an acceptable ID will have to provide information to the Transportation Security Officer performing Travel Document Checking duties in order to verify their identity. Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane.

    Damn that racist airline industry… oops! Wait! That’s not right.

    News bulletin, billy bob…. TSA is a part of government, and it’s TSA regulations, not private airline regulations, for the ID and/or verification of identity. When originally created post 911, it was under the DOT, and was transferred to Homeland Security in 2003.

    I’d say that the government is doing exactly what you doth protest… requiring you show a photo ID, or being forced to prove your identity sufficiently, before they allow you a right specifically determined as Constitutional by the High Court.

    duh… one metal duck down at the shooting gallery. Or in Aye’speak… DAYum!

    Next, if you click on the hotlink in the first “exam” post (hint… it’s bold and in red), which contains the graph, you just might learn something about the Dem Congress reducing the amount of drugs a beneficiary had to be using to qualify for Medicare D, thereby increasing both Medicare and Medicare D costs. In fact, that is what the graph shows…. the lessening amount of drugs needed from the period of 2006 to 2009. And of course, you constantly have to be reminded as to who held power and the purse strings as of 2007. I think we’ve learned you do better with pictures.

    I see you can’t name any social welfare program that doesn’t add to the deficit. But of course you can’t…. because their aren’t any. So the correct answer is… “there are none”. You get no credit by calling it a “BS question”. Did that work for you at your stellar higher learning institution? Dang… no wonder.

    The question is quite direct, and not difficult for even a grade schooler to understand… just what social wefare program has not added to the deficit. Please note the guestion is *not* worded as what proposed social welfare program *claims* it will not add to the deficit. There’s been plenty of those thoughout history proposed by both sides of the aisle.

    Problem is, as history proves and you prefer to ignore, it just don’t happen in reality. But then only fools keep repeating the same errors, and hoping for a new outcome. ahem…

    F on the test… and your research. But, as Aye likes to say, thanks for playing.

  2. 78

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    billy bob: By the way — I note the complete lack of any rational argument refuting my thesis

    That appears to be your personal problem with vocabulary, billy bob. I’m sure many of us can help you with which word escapes your comprehension in the following sentence of mine:

    You deserve not a nanosecond of respect or response time on your arrogant ideology when you refuse to address factual history. Nor will you get it from me.

    However your above statement proves part of my prediction, which followed my above comment…

    So slither off to your corner, where you will convince yourself of some sort of “victory”…. much to our amusement.

    We are amused at your self predicated sense of “victory”. My guess is you haven’t fulfilled the rest of the prediction – slithering off – because you are unable to locate a convenient corner.

  3. 80

    BRob

    Mata, did you even read what I wrote? You DON’T need a photo i.d. to fly on an airplane. But you cons would have required a photo i.d. to vote. Not “information” about your identify (which TSA might require), but a photo i.d. Two very different things, obviously. But cons persistently and specifically push for the governmental photo i.d. All this with no evidence that in person vote fraud is an issue.

    The rest of your post is drivel. The TSA rules are not racist and have no disproportionate impact on anyone. But your photo i.d. for voting requirement, alas, does. And yet, even knowing this, and knowing the absence of evidence of in person voting fraud, compared to the abundant evidence of absentee voting fraud, you cons still have a hard one for photo i.d.s at inner city voting spots.

    But, as usual, you get caught off on some tangent important only to you, Mata, trying to ignore the uncomfortable fact that is the 800 pound gorilla in the room: there is practically NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that in person voting fraud is an issue anywhere in the United States.

    I will repeat it since you are a short busser: there is practically NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that in person voting fraud is an issue anywhere in the United States. Read the friggin Bush era report I linked to, Mata, and educate yourself before you spout off.

    Now the other question: why are cons pushing to solve a “problem” that apparently does not exist, using a disproportionately disqualifying mechanism, all the while ignoring the much bigger voter fraud problem?

    Answer seems pretty clear to me. Southern Strategy, Tom Tancredo calling for use of Jim Crow era “literacy tests” and all that. Funny how Black college professors could never pass those Jim Crow literacy tests no matter what . . . and yet a GOPer presidential candidate calls for their reinstatement.

    If the shoe fits, Mata, you gotta put it on a wear it!

  4. 81

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    Did you read what *you* wrote, billy bob? Good heavens, you’ve had three chances. Your own tirade, my copy/paste in response, and Aye’s repeated.

    Your point? You said comparing the TSA regulations for proof of ID, whether by photo ID or verification by TSA officials, to having to provide proof of ID for voting, were completely diffferent because of private commercial transaction vs government requiring so for a Constitutional right.

    I’d say we shot that down. Now you want to parse words and change your point of commercial vs government/right by saying… parapharased… “but but… I said ‘photo ID’, not proof of identity”.

    You’re really slow, aren’t you? Did you parents have you on Ritalin since grade school? Or are you merely assuming we are as dumb as your peers, where this type of switch/bait BS baffles them successfully?

  5. 82

    BRob

    Mata —

    *sigh* You are just not too bright, are you? Read my first sentence:

    “And don’t try the ‘you need a photo i.d. to cash a check or get on an airplane’ b.s. either.”

    Focus your beady eyes on the phrase “photo i.d.”

    Now check your sentence:

    “You said comparing the TSA regulations for proof of ID, whether by photo ID or verification by TSA officials, to having to provide proof of ID for voting, were completely diffferent because of private commercial transaction vs government requiring so for a Constitutional right.”

    No, I did not you lying curr. I said “photo i.d.” I said nothing about “proof of identity.”

    The you wrote: “Now you want to parse words and change your point of commercial vs government/right by saying… parapharased… “but but… I said ‘photo ID’, not proof of identity”.”

    No, you dummy, I said photo i.d. from the very beginning, didn’t I! That is what I was talking about because THAT IS WHAT YOU CONS ARE PUSHING. Not “proof of identity”. Y’all want a photo i.d.

    That is what the post was about. Your musings about the right to travel? Nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

    My point is simple: in order to minimize the disenfranchising effects of photo i.d. requirements to vote, cons like to say “you need a photo i.d. to cash a check or board a plane.” I explained rather simply and clearly why the first claim is irrelevant and the second claim is false. Your post said nothing about anything relevant to the first comparison.

  6. 83

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    Hummm…. from Mr. Affirmative Action, accusing me of being the “short busser”… LOL Let’s recap, shall we?

    1: TSA requiring proof of identity to get thru airline security, to exercise judicially stated Constitutional right to travel, is not racist.

    2: Requiring proof of identity to exercise the right to vote within the federal or state laws *is* racist.

    It’s obvious how your mind works. And I find it personally offensive.

    billy bob, it may escape your hypersensitive sensibilities – since you tend to read between lines, and ignore the actual print in the lines – but you and I have not had a conversation on whether I believe voters should be required to show proof of eligible criteria for federal or each individual states’ laws. And we most certainly have not discussed it within your perpetually adhered to construct… i.e. any such demand by the state or the feds to demand proof of compliance with those laws is racist in it’s foundation.

    Nor have we discussed literacy tests as a requirement for voting.

    And we most certainly have never discussed whether or not I liked Colorado’s Tancredo. And most definitely not as you, again, choose to frame Tancredo as representative of every Republican registered voter. This is because of your offensive nature to point a finger at one, and air brush everyone with the same color.

    It’s also even more amusing that you whine about the 800 gorilla in the room. You mean the one you drug in, bubba?

    My suggestion… stop making up what you think you know about me, or what you think I said, and stick the the factual arguments you present in order to justify your personal accusations of blanket racism.

  7. 84

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    Speaking of not bright…. shall we again look at your CYA explanation to being demolished by facts, billy bob?

    And don’t try the “you need a photo i.d. to cash a check or get on an airplane” b.s. either. Because it is simply preposterous….

    Now if you decide to claim that the lead in sentence to your “because it is simply preposterous…” clarification are not in the least related, we could all understand that. We’ve already figured out your command of the English language resides primarily with your paralegals.

    The proof that your primary point lies with the following clarification sentence, disputing private commercial transactions vs government demands for a right, is further evidenced by your last sentence…

    And, in addition, you do NOT need a photo i.d…..

    “And in addition…” again diverts back to your first lead in sentence, and makes no sense to repeat your… supposed… primary point is actually an “addition”.

    sigh…. What has William Ayers wrought with his Chicago school criteria over decades. I’d say we see it in billy bob. Even their favored attempt at parsing of words is a skill that eludes the man of the Cleveland courts…

  8. 85

    Aye Chihuahua

    editor

    @BRob:

    Because it is simply preposterous to compare private sector rules for a commercial transaction with a governmental requirement that you show an i.d. before you are allowed to exercise the constitutional right to vote.

    Considering that you have brought attention to your advanced edumakation whilst us peasants have been repeatedly and incessantly running circles ’round you, I’d like to point out something here.

    Mr. ParaLegal2, considering your self-noted higher level of classroom learning, you, of all people, should know that there is no “constitutional right to vote”:

    In short, none of these amendments — if one accepts McPherson’s logic — establishes a constitutional right to vote. Instead, according to McPherson, each places limitations on how voting may occur if and only if the state makes the initial choice to hold an election; the amendments say voting will be non-discriminatory and free of charge — if, that is, we are allowed to vote at all.

    That’s from Michael C. Dorf, Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University (a real law professor…not a lecturer).

    And before you get all puffed up and ready to tell me that Professor Dorf and I are wrong, read up on House Joint Resolution 28 from 2003.

    If there were no absence of the “constitutional right to vote” then those CongressCritters wouldn’t have been busy in 2003 working to amend the Constitution, eh?

    As I told you before, more hours in the classroom does not intelligence make.

    Finally there’s this:

    Are you telling me that it is a “coincidence” that the vote suppression efforts (which a federal court prohibited in Georgia)…

    That’s only slightly correct.

    Your contention that voter ID laws suppress votes flies in the face of numerous research studies on the topic as well as the turnout reality in states where ID laws are in effect.

    While a Federal Court did issue an injunction barring Georgia from charging for a special voter ID card, a subsequent decision by a Federal Appeals Court upheld a modified version of the law. The ID cards are now provided free of charge. If my memory serves, the State of GA will actually send someone to your home or work to provide the card to you.

    Obie’s Justice Dept., however, has now gotten into the fray and has blocked the law which has been upheld by two different Federal Courts.

    This is the same DOJ that dropped the investigation into the Black Panthers who were prowling ’round the polling places truly intimidating voters.

    Yet, they want to delve into a Georgia law that has already been upheld by the Courts.

    Strange, isn’t it?

    Finally, you state:

    The photo i.d. requirement is nonsensical, especially given the near non-existent examples of people actually voting fraudulently a polling places.

    Again, that flies in the face of reality. In Georgia, for example there were numerous incidences of non-citizens being registered voters:

    Prior to the November 2008 General Election, Secretary Handel sent letters to 4,771 voter registration applicants whose records at DDS indicated they were not U.S. citizens, asking them to provide documentation of their citizenship. As of March 2009, 2,148 of these applicants still have chosen not to resolve the question about their U.S. citizenship.

    Furthermore, also in Georgia there are documented cases of non-citizens voting:

    She explains that the law was created after evidence that non citizens have voted in past Georgia elections and that more than 2,100 individuals with questionable citizenship have attempted to register.

  9. 86

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    No matter how billy bob attempts to back his butt out of his own orifice, it still comes down to two things:

    1: billy bob feels *any* proof of compliance with federal or state laws for voting requirements is racist in it’s foundation, but it’s just fine if the TSA… which he might have learned is actually a part of the government… does it.

    Or maybe you’re just fine with it as long as that proof DOESN”T have a photo on it, bubba? Is that what you’re trying to say now when again parsing your words?

    2: billy bob’s spittle attempts at personally insulting me apparently overreached his ability to handle more than three letter words. “cur”, of course being the mongrel dog. (his likely intent… ‘cus I’m pretty darned sure he didn’t mean my cyber words are the soothing sounds of doves, coo’ing )

    I can only say, get it right, loser. That would be Ms. bi’otch, to you.

  10. 87

    Aye Chihuahua

    editor

    @BRob:

    Indeed, do you know of ANYONE ELSE who claims there was no surplus in 2000 and 2001? I mean someone who does not wear tin foil hats, Little dog . . . .

    Well, since you asked so nicely, I’ll see if I can comply.

    Just remember the old adage: A good attorney always knows the answer before asking the question.

    From the Wall Street Journal:

    In the late 1990s, the government was running what it — and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps — called budget “surpluses.” But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the “surpluses.

    Uh oh….this isn’t starting out too well for Mr. ParaLegal2:




    View at EasyCaptures.com




    View at EasyCaptures.com

    Look at the charts above. See the bait & switch shell game going on with the numbers?

    Now, let’s see what good ole Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), hardly a “con” or “right wing nut”…although he’s white and you’ll undoubtedly have some issue with that.

    Here’s a link to the transcript if you want to follow along.

    So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false.

    ::snip::

    Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done.

    It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000.

    Doh!

    Things can only get better right?

    Right?

    From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

    When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.

    From CNN:

    Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program’s surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That’s a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

    Ooofff…..

    This is looking worse and worse and worse for the South Side Shyster.

    From the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

    The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion… The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.

    The fella who wrote that one was Hans F. Sennholz, Emeritus Professor of Economics at Grove City College, is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute.

    I’d say he knows a bit more about economics than you Mr. ParaLegal2.

    Let’s continue. From CBS:

    With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund’s annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year — nearly a decade ahead of schedule — and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation’s books.

    ::snip::

    The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations.

    Let’s see what the esteemed Walter E. Williams the John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University has to say about it:

    Boiled down to its basics, that’s the budget “surplus” hoax that’s coming from the president and Congress. In 1998, there was approximately $120 billion spent out of revenue earmarked for trust funds like the Social Security, highway and unemployment compensation trust funds. There’s absolutely nothing in those trust funds except Treasury Department IOUs.

    That means that when Congress reports there is a $60 billion surplus, we should subtract $120 billion from that so-called surplus. That would leave us with minus $60 billion — a $60 billion deficit for 1998. As such, budget surplus talk is nothing less than a sleight-of-hand accounting hoax perpetrated on the American people.

    The budget situation is actually worse. The federal government uses accounting practices that if used by private companies would land the CEO and the board of trustees in jail. Here’s why: Today’s estimated federal government liability is about $20 trillion. These are federal government promises-to-pay such as the public debt, Social Security, railroad retirement, bank deposit and savings and loan insurance, guaranteed student loans, International Monetary Fund and so forth.

    When private companies have future promises-to-pay, general accounting practices require that they hold actuarially based reserves to cover those claims. How much reserves do you think Congress has set aside to cover federal obligations? If you say zilch, nada, zippo, go to the head of the class. The bottom line is that if Congress followed general accounting practices, instead of a reported surplus, there would be a budget deficit of at least $200 billion.

    You’re welcome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *