futile unless and until USA treats both sides fairly
Mind, Pribumi in the person of its Chairman Mahathir, went there too but more to kacau Najib than to rally for Palestinains, wakakaka, to wit, saying Najib should also rescind 'your foe is our foe' pledge to Trump.
reflecting so accurately the relative powers of the two belligerents
Aisehman, orang tua pun
'nak jadi batu api char koay teow kaukau, wakakaka.
Yes, the 'Gurkhas' (ordinary party members) might be sincere but I dare say and thus conclude that none of the leaders of the major Muslim parties, UMNO, PAS or Pribumi, cared a f**k about the woes of the Palestinians.
The rally might have been good for domestic political points scoring (for the 'Gyurkha') but why not make it a Malaysian rather than a Malay-Muslim affair.
There are many non-Muslims (Chinese Malaysians like kaytee) who are sincere, far more sincere than UMNO, PAS or Pribumi, in wanting a better deal for the Palestinians, on the basis of justice, fairness, righteousness, compassion, humanitarianism.
Israelis teflon-ised their cruel barbaric actions or military's atrocities against Palestinians by screaming 'antisemitism' against any critics
as was done by Charlie Hebdo.While I respect Malaysiakini's journalist, Cmdr (retd) Thayaparan, I don't always agree withhim.
One instant was the Charlie Hebdo affair in which I was anti-Charlie Hebdo for its racist policies masked by its anti-Islamist publications, while Aneh was anti-Islamist terrorists, full stop, wakakaka.
Mind, not that I wasn't anti-terrorists but I could discern Charlie Hebdo's bullshit and was prepared to air them in my blog. I wasn't the only one.
From daily Kos:
On the 5th of May, members of the French satirical journal Charlie Hebdo received PEN's Freedom of Expression Courage award at the organization's annual gala, following more than a week of heated debate about the journal's treatment of Islam and Muslims.
It was indeed announced by PEN at the end of April that six writers had chosen not to attend the upcoming gala, in order to denounce the attribution of the award to Charlie Hebdo.
According to the six writers, and to several others who later joined them in their protest, the journal's content is deeply problematic: in a collective letter, they spoke of "selectively offensive material" which "intensifies the anti-Islamic, anti-Maghreb, anti-Arab sentiments already prevalent in the Western world."
Teju Cole, one of the six writers, argued in a comment to The Intercept: "I don't think it's a good use of our headspace or moral commitments to lionize Charlie Hebdo in particular. L'affaire Rushdie (for example) was a very different matter, as different as blasphemy is from racism."
These sentiments echoed some of the reactions which followed the January 7 attacks in Paris. Indeed, as support for the journal (and for freedom of speech in general) was immediately expressed by many all over the world (notably through the "I am Charlie" slogan), some reactions included both a condemnation of the use of violence against journalists and a condemnation of the contents of Charlie Hebdo, its cartoons being described by some as "bigoted", and even "xenophobic" and "racist".
Francine Prose, who was also part of the six writers who boycotted the gala, recently declared: "It's a racist publication. Let's not beat about the bush."
Following was in part (a small part) a wee ding-dong debate between Cmdr Thayaparan and moi in January of 2015, wakakaka:
08 Jan 2015 - Massacre at Charlie Hebdo - who is guilty?
13 Jan 2015 - Charlie Hebdo - an onion that needs to be peeled
14 Jan 2015 - The Charlie Hebdo debate on freedom of expression by Cmdr Thayaparan, his Malaysiakini article against my post above (also a Malaysiakini article).
His post was also published by me alongside with the post below (also a letter to Malaysiakini), namely, 'KD Freedom of Expression scuttled', wakakaka (excuse my amateur attempt at naval expression)
15 Jan 2015 - ‘KD Freedom of Expression’ scuttled?
and much much earlier in Sep 2012 - Charlie Hebdo - further Western hypocrisy
style of Charlie Hebdo
Yes, the Charlie Hebdo massacre exposed Ktemoc's incapability to forthrightly condemn cold-blooded murder and his acting as apologist to terrorists.ReplyDelete
Whilst I did not condone the attacks on Charlie Hebdo journalists I had and have no sympathy for them either, when they readily ridicule and insult what people hold dear or worthy of respect or veneration, whether real or imagined.Delete
The western liberals and some leftists argued that Charlie Hebdo also insulted the Pope who is dear to Roman Catholics, so therefore it is OK for them to insult the Prophet Muhammad in the name of "free speech" and "free press".
The Catholic League of America also took a similar stand and did not cry for them.
Well, I disagree and these anarchist, rebel-without cause punks asked for it and got it.
Such western "leftists" are not even capable of leading workers to win an industrial dispute, let alone a socialist revolution to victory.
It is because of these kinds of "leftists" that the far right has surged in Europe and militant, fundamentalist Islam has surged in the world.
if you read one of my posts on Charlie Hebdo you will discover that that magazine sacked one of its cartoonists Sinot because he made a remark which was argued to be antisemitic (against Jews). Thus Charlie Hebdo has been highly hypocritical, only insulting Muslims and to a smaller extent Catholics, but steering clear of Jews and JudaismDelete
bet you a ringgit you didn't even bother to read through the exchanges between Commander Thayaparan and me, you thus don't deserve the right to criticise or even praise me since you don't know what was going onReplyDelete
Ktemoc , In describing cold-blooded murder wrote “I have to call what happened in Paris on Jan 7, 2015 as an ‘incident’ "Delete
How disgusting and pro-terrorism can you get ?
shame on you Monsterball, for deliberately quoting me OUT of context and not referring to the fact that was a quotation from a second followup letter.Delete
In my first letter http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/massacre-at-charlie-hebdo-who-is-guilty.html
I had written:
I join the condemnation against such violence which doesn't prove nor achieve anything but where innocent people instead are killed.
But let's not just leave it there - we need to put the total picture in perspective where we need to also condemn Charlie Hebdo for its unnecessary provocations against Muslims.
The (then) French Foreign Minister was damn angry with the earlier provocation of Charlie Hebdo in publishing the Prophet Mohamad caricatures, where he stated "In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should not be undermined. In the present context, given this absurd video that has been aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?"
What was Charlie Hebdo's excuse or if we want to be kind to it, reason for re-publishing (not first to publish as the Norwegians did it first followed by the Danes) something which had already inflamed Muslims all over the world?
As TMI reported: Despite being taken to court under anti-racism laws, the weekly continued to publish controversial cartoons of the Muslim prophet.
In September 2012, Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of a naked prophet as violent protests were taking place in several countries over a low-budget film, titled "Innocence of Muslims", which was made in the United States and had insulted the prophet.
French schools, consulates and cultural centres in 20 Muslim countries were briefly closed along with embassies for fear of retaliatory attacks at the time.
Why was it so adamant about being provocative against Muslims?
In my 2nd letter http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-onion-that-needs-to-be.html (followup of the above) I wrote:
We must look at the Charlie Hebdo incident as of two seemingly interconnected but in reality separate issues.
Precisely because of this, I have to call what happened in Paris on Jan 7, 2015 as an ‘incident’ (and not yet a terrible tragedy), at least until we can separate the two issues and examine each carefully and objectively without being swept or stampeded mindlessly into emotional outpourings of sympathy and solidarity with the French language news weekly as we have seen in the recent ‘Je suis Charlie’ march involving millions of Europeans and their overseas supporters.
The two issues would be firstly, the massacre of 19 people in Paris (12 at Charlie Hebdo’s office) and secondly (and as I will show, separately) the claimed ‘freedom of expression’ by the magazine.
Let us deal with the sad part, that of the indiscriminate merciless killing of 19 people. Some people includingMalaysiakini’s regular contributor, Royal Malaysian Navy’s retired commander S Thayaparan, chose to highlight what had stood out uniquely, that of the Islamist terrorists killing a Muslim police officer. Apart from the fact that Islamist militants had killed Muslims on so many occasions and in so many countries (eg Indonesia versus the Jemaah Islamiah) I find this identification of a victim’s religious affiliation or even ethnic grouping as regrettable.
Does the religion or race of the victims of such a senseless wanton murder matter, unless the aim had been to show that the Muslim murderers were ruthless, indiscriminate in their act of evil and undeserving of considerations in killing a fellow Muslim?
Monsterball has been totally unscrupulous in quoting out of context to portray me as a pro terrorist person. Or, as I said in above remarks, you didn't even bother to read through the exchanges between Commander Thayaparan and me, you thus don't deserve the right to criticise or even praise me since you don't know what was going on
I once had to review the case of a staff member allegedly failing to carry out key required actions as well as improperly conducting important operations.Delete
His wrong doing could easily and accurately be summarised in a couple of sentences.
He needed to write a 2,000 word report to defend himself.
It was pretty obvious he was guilty as alleged.
Yes, yes, his defence was exactly that the accusations were out of context.
You should learn to choose your words and sentences carefully..or else you damn yourself.
stop bullshitting and start apologising, including to Chong EngDelete
Unlike Charlie Hebdo, there is still aplenty of respect for Islam and other religions in KT's satire and mockery. I am with KT here.ReplyDelete
Fully agreed that Ktemoc fully respects Islam. He narrowly focuses his criticisms on present-day individuals, politicians and a few organisations such as JAKIM , JAWI and JAIS.Delete
On the other hand his demeaning of Judaism and Christianity , mocking their sacred texts, is plain for all to see.
Benjamin Nethanyahu was at the 'I am Charlie' rally in Paris, but he had already killed thousands of innocent Palestinians including women and children.Delete
Ah.. as the cartoon depicts - you Monsterball would always justify Nethanyahu's action because the Palestinians are antisemitism. Ain't you supporting Charlie Hebdo too?
KT's journalism is many many more times intelligent and respectful than that fella outsyed (who is a Muslim). It is plain for all to read and see.
Palestinians remain in a state of War with Israel, especially Hamas. They do not recognise Israel's right to exist, and regularly carry out Acts of War against Israel.Delete
Israel responds with acts of war. Airstrikes , artillery strikes.
War is brutal, civilians die in wars.
In the closing months of WWII in Europe 1945, during the siege of Berlin, the Soviet Union carried out the largest artillery bombardment in history against Berlin (It in the Guiness Book of World Records).
Berlin is a densely populated city, and tens of thousands of Berlin civilians were killed by that bombardment.
The complexity of the legal and ethical issues surrounding that Soviet Army's action is today used as a Case study in many Military Colleges on Law and Ethics in War. There are no "Right" answers.
Was it necessary ? Debatable. The German Army was close to defeat at the time.
Was it deplorable? Probably. The bulk of those killed were civilian women and children.
Was it Legal ? YES.
So, was it a valid way to render killings of the Palestinians, Iraqis, Syrians, Saddam, Gaddafi, and other Muslims legal, because the West said/says so? It was/is legal because this was the USA's/NATO's/UN's will? Wow, this was/is really a good way to establish the international law of legitimate killings of Muslims, eh meh? Merry Christmas? Cheers? I wonder whether KT will post that song again, So, This is Christmas?Delete
Iran-Iraq war. The death toll, overall, was an estimated 1 million for Iran and 250,000-500,000 for Iraq. No Western military forces were involved. Want to blame USA ?Delete
Yes, perfectly Legal.
Syrian Civil War ...On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war. Muslims slaughtered Muslims is OK, right ?
USA was egging Iraq on whilst at the same time providing Iran with intelligence - USA was just a double headed snake.Delete
Nations, empires and kingdoms big and small have always interfered with other conflicts in the shadows. They will continue to do so.Delete
However in international law, There is a very specific set of powers who bear responsibility for the conduct of a conflict. They are termed "armed belligerents". Countries or groups which bear arms to fight in a conflict.
United States was in no way an armed belligerent in the Iran- Iraq war, and Ktemoc assigning blame to the Americans is simply a reflection of Ktemoc's Anti-Americanism, not of facts and international law.
CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran.Delete
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.
"Knew by did nothing to stop the gas attacks" ... "provided intelligence".....Delete
A Trump-like official from that time might have said "Let The Fucking Rag-Heads kill each other.. The more the merrier. Not our problem...."
It doesn't make the US responsible for the deaths.. .that squarely belongs to those who were doing the killing...comprehende ?
The Israelis ain't angels.ReplyDelete
But please don't be so hypocritical to paint the Palestinians and also Muslims in other conflicts as innocent victims. The civilians are victims, but those Muslims in power are NOT innocent victims .
Palestinian civilians are Muslim and Christians. Don't confuse and conflate Muslims with Terrorists. Terrorists in Jerusalem and Israel are both Israelis and Palestinians.Delete