12 Nepalese workers have been "executed" in Iraq.

by drunk as a rule (soul searching in the law library) Mon Jun 27, 2005 18:27

So I'll lay out the facts of the case and the immediate events preceding the disconnect here for elucidation and entertainment. I am adding the final comment I attempted to post here. Indymedia Article from FI at the link.

**************************

Oh yeah 'Paranoia': Indymedia was paranoid back when it was the only Irish outlet reporting that shannon airport was suddenly being used to transfer a majority of us troops to Iraq: Michael Mc Dowell described contributors as 'mad'.
The truth will out.
[Trolling - partly deleted]
Edited By Siteowner
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 2:56 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

much as i would be critical of indymedia it represents a uncensored news source and as such should be welcomed. the site you link to is rather poor and actually is the mirror of what it hates.
hensons | 27.06.05 - 3:04 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They were banned from working in Iraq. Yet, they went and like many other workers took up legal arms to guard Westerners. They were mercenaries. And now they are dead."
Source link please Peter: When you remove the context entirely from something you can prove anything.
I vaguely remember this incident but cannot find the thread.
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 3:25 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't imagine any 'context' that would excuse those four sentences.
Richard Waghorne | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 3:32 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i'm not going to excuse them: I'm going to fact check them.
Facts I want to check:
1. They were banned from working in Iraq (I believe by their own government)
2. They went anyway and took up arms to guard westerners
3. They were mercenaries
4. They are dead
All of the above are statements of fact. I want to fact check them. I want to see if the FI thinks certain 'facts' are by their nature 'inexcusable'.
Are there any facts that you would deem 'illegal' or 'beyond the pale' if they could be shown to be objectively true Richard?
Sounds like you were learning goodo from the 'Preznit' on your trip.
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 3:40 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

slagging a particular party (PDs) and quoting the minister for justice on Indymedia (the subject of this piece) is trolling now?
Wow
I quoted Michael McDowells charachterisation of indymedia contributers as 'mad' at time of buildup to war to point out the very close match of that talking point to this blog article talking point.
Is this a little over-sensitive. I will keep my humour to myself around here from now on. (that'd be the second deletion - first was a quotation from Father jack) It must be illegal.
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 3:53 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the phantom deleter in question, I'd advise you that random personal abuse, especially when in Borat-style English, doesn't add much to anyone's reading experience.
However, more substantial comments such as your later ones are welcome.
Peter Nolan | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 4:03 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well done Peter on finding a like-minded soul with a bee in their bonnet about indymedia.
A pity s/he seems to combine a jolly mixture of paranoia and obsessiveness with caricature. Not much meat on those bones I'm afraid.
banned poster | 27.06.05 - 4:09 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

fr jack style english I think you mean. Now where is the address for the thread you quoted re Nepalese workers?
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 4:11 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doing your homework for ya Peter...
Seaching Indymedia.ie "They were banned from working"
results in: Sorry, but no stories match your query!
Googling is sometimes better: "They were banned from working" indymedia
You see only one result.
Google has pretty much sucked up all of Indymedia.ie and also shows up in Google News, as well.
I'm not saying that post didn't happen, or isn't on Indymedia.ie somewhere - but I doubt it.
I suspect 'Chumps for Chomsky' has made a chump out of you.
redjade | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 4:20 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

and it wasn't personal abuse - the only entities I indulged in a little light hearted (pseudo-drunken) banter about were
1. FI
2. PD's
No persons.
Or am I lying because I am exhibiting 'the full flowering of unhinged paranoia'?
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 4:23 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Peter a pattern of using linked (or in this case unlinked) material in a dubious manner is emerging. (For the rigidly bored or genuinely curious see recent racism blog post on here and comments) What have you got to say in your defense?
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 4:25 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

whats wrong with borat. he loves freedom after all.
hensons | 27.06.05 - 4:27 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On behalf of the famous five: We resent being slagged by 'strange groupuscules which seem to exist nowhere else' like the FI.
Julian, dick and anne george a | 27.06.05 - 4:28 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You guys aren't the best with search facilities, are you?
I got it in less than half a minute:
http://www.indymedia.ie/ newswire...rch_comments=on
Apologies are in order. Not that I expect it, but hey, surprise me.
Richard Waghorne | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 4:32 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies for that Richard. Now which facts in that do you want to dispute?
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 4:35 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

they're employing the Socratic method with my old friends in the International Solidarity Movement.
Perhaps you'd like to repeat your libellous claim that Asif Mohammed Hanif was a 'comrade' of Rachel Corrie's (you know - the claim you quietly cut when you were called on it - and then refused to acknowledge)?
banned poster | 27.06.05 - 4:43 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

see the IRA numbers thread. I am progressively being ASBOed. Sometimes a notice is left - sometimes not. They keep calling me slagging and distributing info on MOJ and PDs abusive.
Is it abusive to slag a political party? Obviously not as there is plenty of slagging of other political parties on here.
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 4:49 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where your comments make no attempt at a substantive point and go for personal abuse instead, as has been the case with quite a number of your contributions, those comments will be edited or removed. The percentage of comments edited on the site is in the region of 1%. Most people, many critical, find it perfectly possible to engage without causing any difficulties.
Do me a favour and don't push the rules today: I've about a hundred things to do and I'm just going to zap comments that are clearly over the line. The guidelines are linked above if common sense is a insufficient guide for you.
Richard Waghorne | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 4:56 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the link Richard,
Some quick web research...
1. They were banned from working in Iraq (I believe by their own government) - confirmed, Nepal Govt ban strengthened after killings.
2. They went anyway and took up arms to guard westerners - semi-confirmed, may have been 12 of the 17,000
3. They were mercenaries - see above and 'helping U.S. forces'
4. They are dead - confirmed, obviously
redjade | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 5:01 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, the facts aren't in dispute, though I've always been under the impression that 'mercenaries' fight. Be the definition applied here I'd almost qualify as a 'mercenary' from my desk in DC.
The point, as Peter rightly highlighted, is that putting "executed" in inverted commas, and suggesting that their brutal murder is somehow qualified because of the circumstances of their presence in the country is despicable and indefensible.
The post was, incidentally, also subtitled 'the tragic legacy of bush' though perhaps assigning responsibility to the twelve beheadings to those who committed the act would be correct.
Richard Waghorne | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 5:06 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

My comments are being deleted wholesale. They as with the comment left above are being deleted as Personal abuse and bizzarely ;'inarticulate'.
I slagged no-one personally. I made an accusation about one FI writer which I'll happily stand up if requested.
I have routinely indulged in some light banter about PDs/MOJ/ and FI.
None of these are individuals so how can I be personally abusing them?
You seem to have no cumpunction about slagging off a voluntary organisation in a dubious way yourselves.
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
And also I will not limit my posting because you have a busy afternoon ahead.
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 5:07 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody is asking you to limit your posts - we take pride in having a busy comments section - you are, however, required to conform to the guidelines.
This is not a problem for the vast majority of people who use the comments here, who have no difficulty critiquing FI output with varying degrees of cogency without making life complicated for people. Our editing rate is around 1% of comments.
Richard Waghorne | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 5:11 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

sheesh! If this blog post included actual writing instead of reposting from a site that reported something without links - all would have been a little easier!
'executed' and you're offended that someone might attribute the deaths of 12 Nepalese to the fact that Bush invaded Iraq.
Richard, you should give me a password to this blog, because I could write a better critique of Indymedia.ie that you guys!
redjade | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 5:15 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd almost qualify as a 'mercenary' from my desk in DC
I doubt your internship at Cato would qualify in the mercenary salary bracket. $700 a month doesn't go far.
banned poster | 27.06.05 - 5:18 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

and they're all me at present. On another thread instead of justifying deletions you claim that the word I used in my complaint - articulacy - does not exist. It does in the British dictionary Richard.
This brings to mind a limerick:
You're expressive, a well-spoken guy.
If to use it you're skittish,
Then note the word's British.
(Americans, bid it goodbye.)
So who's articulate?
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 5:18 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

by 'and they're all me' I meant the 1% deletions today.
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 5:20 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And richard you also could not be defined as a mercenary in your US office because (correct me if i'm wrong) there is no war presently taking place on the US mainland
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 5:21 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ye Gods.
First, no, it's not a word. You've linked to where some randomer submitted it to an OED project on new words about three months back. Look it up in a dictionary, or at dictionary.com, at it's not there. At the rate Oxford are debasing their dictionary it may make it in a year or two, but right now, it's status remains 'submitted by randomer'.
Second, no posts are ever deleted because they are poorly expressed. Posts can be deleted if utterly incoherent, though I don't know of that ever happening.
Third, your post was deleted because it was without content other than ad hominen argumentation. Peter added, on deleting it, that it was inarticulate in addition to being trolling, but it was the fact that it was trolling which was why it was removed.
Not complicated.
Richard Waghorne | Homepage | 27.06.05 - 5:24 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rogets Thesaurus on Articulacy.
You better give them a ring Richard. You seem to know better than me/them.
drunk as a rule | 27.06.05 - 5:27 pm | #

And my Killer blow diverted:

I respectfully submit to the assembled masses of right wing and left wing hacks here present that the Blog post on Indymedia by any objective judgement is 'ad hominen argumentation' by any standard of definition of such a term.

I rest my case M'lud

back to the library with me for a few shots of protestant whiskey.

by drunk as a rule (soul searching in the law library) Mon Jun 27, 2005 18:39

it was the dreaded hal0scan.

I wish it hadn't been. (nasty old me). Must try harder

by drunk as a rule (soul searching in the law library) Mon Jun 27, 2005 19:00

comments are working as on my little haloscan box that I kept live through incident - I began posting again in response to slander of ISM and rachel corrie a few seconds ago. The box was working and peter nolan was lining up his cut and pastes from Frontpage magazine. I closed box - went back to front page and viola - all comments from all articles inaccessible sheesh

by daar ssitll Mon Jun 27, 2005 19:04

back again

maybe they are hoping I'll go away or maybe it is haloscan.

wierdy dierdy