Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Swedish Author, Henning Mankell, Held in Israel After Attack On Aid Convoy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bleddyn
    Banned
    • Jun 2010
    • 32

    Then ban me

    Originally posted by Reinart der Fuchs View Post
    Originally posted by Bleddyn View Post
    "Mujaheddin" abv to Mudj (Military Slang)...
    You didn't use Mudj as an abbreviation. You said it yourself, it's slang. Any word used to objectify a human being (he's a grunt, she's a bitch, he's a [insert racial slur]) is basically hatred. Now, as a new member here you may have skipped over our Code of Conduct and I'll take this time to point out that you should read and understand it. I am a veteran of the United States Army where I served honorably for 3 years. I advise you soldier to pull yourself together and comport yourself respectably. Your agressive behaviour in this thread and your disrepectful tone is disgraceful. You are not in a war zone here, and you are among fellow Americans and friendly Europeans who have as much right to their opinions as you have. The one thing we do not tolerate at this site is the abusive language you have fallen into. I generally ban haters instantly and without consultation or communication.

    If you reply to this thread, or engage in any further abusive hateful conversation in any other part of this site, I will ban you without a single further word.

    Thank you
    First off it is Staff Sergeant not soldier if you want to play that game then get it right.. I have 11 years active service and a gunshot wounds/medical retirement to go along with so never equate your three years with mine ..... Mudj is an accepted abbreviation in the both the state department and military circles. It ha been used since the 80s when we we supporting the Afghan Mudj against the soviet bear. Your attempt at trying to limit my free speech is disgraceful. If they and I have a right to our opinions then we should be able to express them. If you disagree then ban me and I will laugh. I have suggested academically and intentionally acclaimed Lebenese and Pakistaini authors where combined with my experience I have drawn my opinions and conclusions. So one I am not trolling and two the individual in question got into a debate and got stomped.

    Heck why not

    Fuck the bunch of you...

    Comment

    • The Cosmic Balance
      The Final Programme
      • Oct 2004
      • 3679

      You had to go for the nuclear option, didn't you?

      Why can't you guys accept that we all have different but sincerely held beliefs, views, perspectives and ideas, that as long as all debate is conducted in REASONABLE terms (the clue's in the title) without resorting to hate or insults then we can all continue to participate together?

      We're all here because we enjoy Mike's work and yet we continue to allow these sorts of differences to divide and separate us.

      I really would ask that you reconsider what you've just said.

      Thanks.
      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

      Comment

      • Reinart der Fuchs
        Mr. The Fox
        • May 2006
        • 4702

        Bleddyn has been banned forever.
        Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

        Comment

        • Reinart der Fuchs
          Mr. The Fox
          • May 2006
          • 4702

          Except for the hatred, it wasn't his opinion that got him banned. All views (except hate and porn) are welcomed if they can be communicated in a respectful manner. The opinions of a soldier or veteran do not outweigh the opinions of any other living human being, and vice versa.
          Last edited by Reinart der Fuchs; 06-08-2010, 02:20 PM.
          Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

          Comment

          • johneffay
            Born Again Nihilist
            • Sep 2005
            • 3394

            Cheers guys.

            I'd just like to say as a self-avowed Lefty (but probably not an apologist, as I seldom apologise for anything ), that these arguments really don't have to go this way.

            Oren, who sometimes seems to be the lone voice of Israel on here, has spent years flying the flag on this forum and has always been perfectly sound. I, for one, am always grateful for his input and particularly the links (which I always read, but seldom agree with).

            We don't have to agree with each other, we just have to treat each other as real people.

            Comment

            • Rothgo
              Champion of the Unbalanced
              • Aug 2006
              • 6663

              I'm aware its often used pejoratively, but as I understand it, an "apologist" is not by definition talking rubbish - merely rationally defending a position / person / whatever. Apologist sophistry seems to be the modern interpretation, but is it me or modernity that's out-of-kilter?

              Comment

              • johneffay
                Born Again Nihilist
                • Sep 2005
                • 3394

                Rothgo, as a good Christian boy, do you not know what an apologist is?

                Originally, an apologist was somebody who produced an apologetic, which is a rational defence or explanation for Christianity. There have been loads of them, but Aquinas is probably top dog in this area.
                Apologists are opposed to fideists, who think that reason is not sufficient and so offer faith based defences.

                Comment

                • Rothgo
                  Champion of the Unbalanced
                  • Aug 2006
                  • 6663

                  I do indeed know of the Christian apologists and thus the basis for the term, but these days one is only likely to hear "Blah is just an apologist for the state" or the like. A fully negative take on the term. So should we accept that the meaning has changed or not?

                  Comment

                  • Kevin McCabe
                    Citizen of Tanelorn
                    • Jun 2007
                    • 6112

                    Well its an ill wind that blows no one good and this one has blown me the term fideist. I've read St. Thomas' proofs (and might do so again, they're not all that hard). Anyone know who is in Aquinas' league, but in the fideist camp?
                    Kevin McCabe
                    The future is there, looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become. William Gibson

                    Comment

                    • Oren
                      Guardian of the Grail
                      • Dec 2003
                      • 488

                      Originally posted by David Mosley View Post
                      On the matter of the Reuters cropped photographs and the allegation that they were also Photoshopped as well as cropped, I believe I can categorically say, based on the evidence below, that neither blood nor knife was 'photoshopped out' of the cropped image
                      While it first seemed to me there was photoshopping involved, I agree that there wasn't any. That's why I deleted a certain post of mine that assumed otherwise. I also agree that the entire issue was blown out of proportions, and was probably not intentional to begin with.

                      I have a very kind Turkish colleague at work and we are updating each other nearly daily regarding the entire fiasco. He told me that before the flotilla incident the socialist party (CHP) in Turkey had been on the rise, getting a lot of media coverage. Since the incident, they are not getting the same coverage anymore and the Islamic party (Ak Parti) has risen by as much as 5% in the polls (the elections will take place next year).

                      This poll is from May 2010, about 2 days before the incident, showing how close to each other both parties were at the time:




                      My colleague's said that Israel should try to lower the flames as they only help to strengthen the Islamic party. His prediction is that, if things get calm again, the next government will be a coalition between the socialist and the nationalist parties, leaving the Islamic one out.

                      Comment

                      • johneffay
                        Born Again Nihilist
                        • Sep 2005
                        • 3394

                        Originally posted by Kevin McCabe View Post
                        Anyone know who is in Aquinas' league, but in the fideist camp?
                        The greatest work of Fideism ever written, mainly because it is so well written, is Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling.

                        Comment

                        • Kevin McCabe
                          Citizen of Tanelorn
                          • Jun 2007
                          • 6112

                          Thanks John! Ouch, though. My dim, hazy recollection is that ol' Soren is a lot more complex than Aquinas.
                          Kevin McCabe
                          The future is there, looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become. William Gibson

                          Comment

                          • J-Sun
                            Priest of Nadsokor
                            • Dec 2007
                            • 2173

                            Originally posted by Kevin McCabe View Post
                            Well its an ill wind that blows no one good and this one has blown me the term fideist. I've read St. Thomas' proofs (and might do so again, they're not all that hard). Anyone know who is in Aquinas' league, but in the fideist camp?
                            Augistine kind of straddles the line between fideist and apologeticist. Like many of us, he he tries to have a rational faith, but recognizes that in many ways that is an oxymoron. I would put C.S. Lewis in the same camp.

                            If you haven't read St. John of Damascus, his Exact Exposition is a pretty solid fideist viewpoint, I would think. The more modern A.W. Tozer is an easy read and probably in a similar category, I would think.

                            Most of the popular stuff published today seems to err on the side of Fideism, more's the pity, as I like a good old-fashioned apologeticist like Francis Schaeffer.

                            As I see it (and admittedly I probably count as about as biased as they come), apologetics work great to defend the validity of the faith to the non-faithful, while the fideist argument is great to encourage the faithful but laregly useless with most of the unfaithful.

                            My two cents
                            "Self-discipline and self-knowledge are the key. An individual becomes a unique universe, able to move at will through all the scales of the multiverse - potentially able to control the immediate reality of every scale, every encountered environment."
                            --Contessa Rose von Bek, Blood part 4, chapter 12

                            Comment

                            • Kevin McCabe
                              Citizen of Tanelorn
                              • Jun 2007
                              • 6112

                              Thanks for the insight on how these things are deployed tactically.
                              Kevin McCabe
                              The future is there, looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become. William Gibson

                              Comment

                              • In_Loos_Ptokai
                                Abrogate all rituals
                                • Apr 2007
                                • 803

                                Some questions some Israelis want answered

                                Posed by Uri Avnery, of course, and forwarded by myself:

                                Uri Avnery
                                June 12, 2010

                                Who is Afraid of a real Inquiry?

                                If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:

                                1. What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?

                                2. If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)?

                                3. Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)?

                                4. What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers – when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels?

                                5. Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime?

                                6. Since this has not happened, but – on the contrary – Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter?

                                7. Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?

                                8. If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive?

                                9. Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?

                                10. Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas?

                                11. Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement - to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port - in a way that would prevent the passage of arms?

                                12. Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel’s own territorial waters, and that ships entering them “infringe on Israeli sovereignty”, contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had “separated” itself from it?

                                13. Why has the Attorney General’s office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had “tried to enter Israel illegally”, and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns “illegal entry into Israel”?

                                14. Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has “separated itself from the Gaza Strip” and that the “occupation there has come to an end” – and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip?


                                Question concerning the decision to attack the flotilla:

                                15. When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.)

                                16. When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto)

                                17. What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto)

                                18. What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto)

                                19. When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force?

                                20. Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza?

                                21. Were there others who also advised doing so?

                                22. Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions?

                                23. If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries?

                                24. In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law – did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence?

                                25. Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on?

                                26. Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered?

                                27. Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered?

                                28. Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas?

                                29. Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult?


                                Question concerning the planning of the action:

                                30. What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.)

                                31. Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component?

                                32. Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship?

                                33. Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats?

                                34. If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected?

                                35. Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation – the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy?

                                36. If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister?

                                37. How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these?

                                38. Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip?

                                39. Why was it executed in darkness?

                                40. Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship “Mavi Marmara”?

                                41. During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship “Exodus 1947”, which ended in a political disaster for the British?


                                Questions concerning the action itself:

                                42. Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide?

                                43. Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap?

                                44. Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position?

                                45. When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition?

                                46. Which of the soldiers was the first to fire?

                                47. Was the shooting – all or part of it – justified?

                                48 Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers?

                                49. Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags?

                                5٠. Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives?

                                51. Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist?

                                52. Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist?

                                53. Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist?

                                54. Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist?

                                55. Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists?

                                56. Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it?

                                57. Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died?

                                58.. Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to “piss in his pants”, that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned?

                                59. Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story?

                                60. Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship “Karin A”?

                                Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman:

                                61. IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public?

                                62. Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after?

                                63. What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be “lynched”, when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them?

                                64. What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda?

                                65. On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a “terrorist organization”, though no evidence for this claim was offered?

                                66. Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party?

                                67. If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation?

                                68. Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla?

                                69. Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a “shahid”, translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted “to kill and be killed” (“shahid” means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)?

                                70. What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out “Go back to Auschwitz”?

                                71. Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot?

                                72. Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea?

                                73. Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons – when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers?

                                74. Do all these items – coupled with the endless repetition of the word “terrorists” and the blocking of any contrary information – not constitute brainwashing?


                                Questions concerning the inquiry:

                                75. Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them?

                                76. Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify - but not to answer questions?

                                77. Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify – when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning?

                                78. Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)?

                                79. Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes?

                                80. Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad?


                                And, finally, the question of questions:

                                81. What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?
                                Last edited by In_Loos_Ptokai; 06-12-2010, 05:32 AM.
                                sigpic Myself as Mephistopheles (Karen Koed's painting of me, 9 Nov 2008, U of Canterbury, CHCH, NZ)

                                Gold is the power of a man with a man
                                And incense the power of man with God
                                But myrrh is the bitter taste of death
                                And the sour-sweet smell of the upturned sod,

                                Nativity,
                                by Peter Cape

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X