The Vikings were raiders. They killed people and took their stuff - or extorted it in exchange for not killing them. When you find foreign stuff in a Viking hoard, it's a pretty good guess that it was stolen.
As for not knowing what "race" was, they knew who was a Viking and who was a potential slave. Irish - slave. Sicilian - slave. Slav - slave. Arab - slave. And "mingling" with Maltese and other women is an interesting euphemism for raping them.
And why couldn't these fictional workers get work in Lebanon? Because it was illegal for Palestinians to work in Lebanon. Even Palestinians born in Lebanon are to this day denied the right to work. Perhaps some day you will write a post about discrimination against Palestinians in Lebanon.
Kanafani, BTW, was one of the plotters of the 1972 Lod Airport Massacre. He was one of the people who came up with the clever idea to recruit the Japanese Red Army to carry out the attack because the Israelis would not be on their guard against Japanese. He was targeted and killed because he was a terrorist, not because he wrote stories.
I was surprised last year when Obama used the "red line" metaphor in his August 2012 speech. It's not a common expression in American politics and what Obama actually meant by it was not at all clear.
By contrast, crossing a "red line" is common in Israeli politics, where it means an action by an adversary that will certainly result in either a retaliation or a preemptive strike.
The metaphor appears to arise from the red line on a tachometer showing the maximum RPM's that the engine can achieve without a high risk of structural failure. This is how Israelis use it: crossing a red line means entering into a zone that threatens the very existence of the state of Israel that cannot be tolerated. A "red line" is, in theory at least, an objective condition, which is very different from "a line in the sand," which is a more or less arbitrary limit drawn by one party at its discretion.
Obama couldn't have used the term as Israelis understand it. Syrian use of chemical weapons poses no threat to the existence of the United States. He might have meant "a line in the sand." But perhaps he meant something even less definitive, just as something that would change the way he viewed the situation. Or perhaps he didn't want to be clear, and was opting instead for ambiguity:
"'a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,' Obama said. 'That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.'"
"Change my calculus" and "a range of contingency plans" is a heck of lot weaker than "require an armed response."
But it's natural for Israelis to understand "red line" as they use it, and with that understanding, Obama does look weak and vacillating.
HomerJ-
Manning is being tortured for the reason that torturers always torture: to extract a false confession from the victim. From medieval witches to Soviet show trials to Guantanamo Bay, the point of torture is to make the victim say what you tell him to say, regardless of the truth.
In Manning's case the message has been very unsubtle:
"Say what we tell you to say or you'll never see the light of the sun, never see a tree or a blade of grass, never speak to another human being, never sleep in darkness or read a book or run a step for the rest of your life. We will keep you alone in a lighted box in your underwear for the next 50 years. We will drive you insane. But if you say what we tell you to say we'll put you in a general prison population and you'll spend your life with other people so at least you'll retain your sanity. The choice is yours."
The Vikings were raiders. They killed people and took their stuff - or extorted it in exchange for not killing them. When you find foreign stuff in a Viking hoard, it's a pretty good guess that it was stolen.
As for not knowing what "race" was, they knew who was a Viking and who was a potential slave. Irish - slave. Sicilian - slave. Slav - slave. Arab - slave. And "mingling" with Maltese and other women is an interesting euphemism for raping them.
And why couldn't these fictional workers get work in Lebanon? Because it was illegal for Palestinians to work in Lebanon. Even Palestinians born in Lebanon are to this day denied the right to work. Perhaps some day you will write a post about discrimination against Palestinians in Lebanon.
Kanafani, BTW, was one of the plotters of the 1972 Lod Airport Massacre. He was one of the people who came up with the clever idea to recruit the Japanese Red Army to carry out the attack because the Israelis would not be on their guard against Japanese. He was targeted and killed because he was a terrorist, not because he wrote stories.
It should go without saying that BDS specifically rejects anti-Semitism in any form.
Yes, indeed. It should go without saying. Because it isn't true.
http://forward.com/opinion/319583/how-matisyahu-ban-backfired-on-bds-backers/
I was surprised last year when Obama used the "red line" metaphor in his August 2012 speech. It's not a common expression in American politics and what Obama actually meant by it was not at all clear.
By contrast, crossing a "red line" is common in Israeli politics, where it means an action by an adversary that will certainly result in either a retaliation or a preemptive strike.
The metaphor appears to arise from the red line on a tachometer showing the maximum RPM's that the engine can achieve without a high risk of structural failure. This is how Israelis use it: crossing a red line means entering into a zone that threatens the very existence of the state of Israel that cannot be tolerated. A "red line" is, in theory at least, an objective condition, which is very different from "a line in the sand," which is a more or less arbitrary limit drawn by one party at its discretion.
Obama couldn't have used the term as Israelis understand it. Syrian use of chemical weapons poses no threat to the existence of the United States. He might have meant "a line in the sand." But perhaps he meant something even less definitive, just as something that would change the way he viewed the situation. Or perhaps he didn't want to be clear, and was opting instead for ambiguity:
"'a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,' Obama said. 'That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.'"
"Change my calculus" and "a range of contingency plans" is a heck of lot weaker than "require an armed response."
But it's natural for Israelis to understand "red line" as they use it, and with that understanding, Obama does look weak and vacillating.
HomerJ-
Manning is being tortured for the reason that torturers always torture: to extract a false confession from the victim. From medieval witches to Soviet show trials to Guantanamo Bay, the point of torture is to make the victim say what you tell him to say, regardless of the truth.
In Manning's case the message has been very unsubtle:
"Say what we tell you to say or you'll never see the light of the sun, never see a tree or a blade of grass, never speak to another human being, never sleep in darkness or read a book or run a step for the rest of your life. We will keep you alone in a lighted box in your underwear for the next 50 years. We will drive you insane. But if you say what we tell you to say we'll put you in a general prison population and you'll spend your life with other people so at least you'll retain your sanity. The choice is yours."