Why I Support the War in Iraq

[bflatminor24]

Well, if you ARE going to push the envelope and use a semantic argument (which I find unconvincing), I'll play your game. I define terrorism as using violence and intimidation to impose political will. The dictionary, according to my computer's built-in dictionary (but of course this could just be a facet of our oppressive government doctoring the definition to fit their needs, now couldn't it?) the definition is the same. So I fail to understand where exactly the ambiguity lies. Terrorism is, unequivocally, the use of violence and intimidation to impose political will.

What's in YOUR wallet?

[prometheus]

The definition I use is: "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are are political, religious, or ideological in nature."


I don't see how the 'impose' and 'defend' are seperate things. If you are going to overthrow apartheid you aren't defending apartheid. You are defending equal rights. If you fight against the ANC terrorists you are defending apartheid. ANC terrorists will be imposing their will eventhough it was supported by the general population. So who is imposing and who is defending?

[bflatminor24]

Here we go again, trying to cloud the distinction. You are twisting the definition of imposing and defending.

Let's be clear. If you are being oppressed, you can't be imposing. Conversely, one who imposes cannot also be in defense. That's like saying the man who comits armed robbery is "defending" himself against the bank and the police. Or it would be like calling the bank "imposers" for calling the police to defend themselves.

Do you not know the difference between offense and defense? Defending your right to free speech is not the same as telling others what to say. Similarly, people who are oppressed because of apartheid are not imposing on those who enforce apartheid.

A man may defend his rights as a citizen, but he does not bomb buildings and snipe civilians to get what he wants. As far as I'm concerned, Nelson Mandela and the ANC were defending their rights as people, not imposing some kind of political system upon the government. They were defending rights, not imposing them.

And anyway, let's be frank, he wasn't blowing up buses full of children either. Acts of terrorism entail attacks NOT targeted at the US government, but at its people. Acts targeted against a government are classified as warfare. The terminology isn't Orwellian, even though people like you try to make it that way by trying to cloud its meaning.

[bflatminor24]

You are like the John Cage of politics.

You know why people don't like John Cage? Because he tried to change the meaning of music. Before, people knew music as not just an organization of sound (as Cage puts it), but as beautiful melody and warming sounds that touched their hearts, that inspired emotion. Cage made music into anything with noise that sends some kind of message. So according to Cage, me pounding your face could be music to my ears.

And who the hell listens to Cage anyway? He's more the center of musical humor and satire than he is a model for composing, much less enjoyable to listen to. Yay, Cage tried to change the meaning of music, what a rebel. Ooh. Too bad his music sounds like shiit. Way to go, record an album of farts and call it a soundtrack. Moron.

[prometheus]

Let's be clear. If you are being oppressed, you can't be imposing.

Uuh... so palestinians can't be terrorists?

Conversely, one who imposes cannot also be in defense. That's like saying the man who comits armed robbery is "defending" himself against the bank and the police. Or it would be like calling the bank "imposers" for calling the police to defend themselves.

But the bank is imposing their right to own money. I really don't get this. You mean that proposing changes is imposing and defending against change is defending?

What if the robber succesfully takes the money and the police come to get the money back. Does that turn the roles around?

Do you not know the difference between offense and defense? Defending your right to free speech is not the same as telling others what to say.

Surely the ANC waged a succesful offense against the SA government. The SA government was in power. They were defending their power and the ANC was attacking it.

Similarly, people who are oppressed because of apartheid are not imposing on those who enforce apartheid.

This is totally about the ethical discussion about the nature of the political and sociological points made. Not about the definition of terrorism.

A man may defend his rights as a citizen, but he does not bomb buildings and snipe civilians to get what he wants.

First of, the person will not have rights. A person is not defending rights, he is fighting for them.
Second, killing people to get what he wants often happens when we are talking about people with no rights and no army.

As far as I'm concerned, Nelson Mandela and the ANC were defending their rights as people, not imposing some kind of political system upon the government. They were defending rights, not imposing them.

I never said that what they did wasn't justified. I just don't see how you can make such a clear distinction between 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. And this while you don't even look at ethics but at power structures; he who is defending and he who is attacking.
Surely Al Quada has less power than the US. Therefore only the US is in the position to impose anything. This meaning that Al Quada can't be terrorists.

Acts of terrorism entail attacks NOT targeted at the US government, but at its people. Acts targeted against a government are classified as warfare. The terminology isn't Orwellian, even though people like you try to make it that way by trying to cloud its meaning.

The definition of terrorism generally doesn't make this distinction. If it does then that is Orwellian if you ask me. The difference between terrorism and (guerullia) warfare is that terrorism is to gain politicial or sociological goals while warfare is to gain military goals.

[bflatminor24]

Uuh... so palestinians can't be terrorists?

But the bank is imposing their right to own money. I really don't get this. You mean that proposing changes is imposing and defending against change is defending?

What if the robber succesfully takes the money and the police come to get the money back. Does that turn the roles around?

Surely the ANC waged a succesful offense against the SA government. The SA government was in power. They were defending their power and the ANC was attacking it.

This is totally about the ethical discussion about the nature of the political and sociological points made. Not about the definition of terrorism.

First of, the person will not have rights. A person is not defending rights, he is fighting for them.
Second, killing people to get what he wants often happens when we are talking about people with no rights and no army.

I never said that what they did wasn't justified. I just don't see how you can make such a clear distinction between 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. And this while you don't even look at ethics but at power structures; he who is defending and he who is attacking.
Surely Al Quada has less power than the US. Therefore only the US is in the position to impose anything. This meaning that Al Quada can't be terrorists.


The definition of terrorism generally doesn't make this distinction. If it does then that is Orwellian if you ask me. The difference between terrorism and (guerullia) warfare is that terrorism is to gain politicial or sociological goals while warfare is to gain military goals.

Palestinians can't be terrorists? Well if that statement doesn't epitomize a non sequitur, I don't know what does. Of course they can be, and they are. I don't see where this confusion lies. What part of "imposing political will" do you not understand? As soon as you agree to a universal set of human rights, anyone who seeks to deprive others of those is an imposer, and one who willfully defends those rights is a defender. What difference does it make if the police retrieve the money from the robber? This doesn't change anything. The police are still fighting to maintain the certain ethical boundaries set forth under our legal system. Obviously you have to agree to certain rights before you "defend" or "impose" them.

And if you honestly harbor this opinion, then explain to me how someone who blows up a schoolbus full of children is committing the same level of travesty as one who shoots the suicide bomber before he reaches his target? One is protecting the basic human rights of those children to live unharmed, while the other seeks to impose his political will of harming innocent people to make a point.

And when did I introduce justification? I'm speaking about the act itself, irrespective of its justifications. I'm clarifying the already existent distinction between defending a right (such as the right to live, or the right to free speech) and imposing a will (such as forcing others to live in a ghetto, when there is no human right that entails forcing others to live in a ghetto, but there IS a human right that entails living unharmed...).

[stevie]

Well, aren't you a selfish one. That's not a very ethical opinion, now is it? Have you no regard for greater common good? And thank God this wasn't an agenda harbored by the movers and shakers, because I'll be damned if Wells, Anthony, King, and some would argue Christ himself ever reaped the fruits of their labor. People struggle for a just cause and if they're lucky, generations later, others will reap what they sewed. Altruism is dead isn't it(?)...

is it really unethical for someone to value their own life above vitually all else?

its only natural, surely

[zheer]

   I think bflatminor24 knows what he is talking about,a clear distinction between terror - freedom and war.

[bflatminor24]

   I think bflatminor24 knows what he is talking about,a clear distinction between terror - freedom and war.

Thanks...I'm Max btw, in case any of you were wondering.

Oh and I have every GODOWSKY AND ALKAN RECORDING so if you want any let me know

~Max~

[zheer]

Oh and I have every GODOWSKY AND ALKAN RECORDING so if you want any let me know

~Max~

     Thanks but no thanks i dont like GODOWSKY very much.

[ahinton]

     Thanks but no thanks i dont like GODOWSKY very much.

Quite what any of that has to do with whether any particular contributor does or does not support the war in Iraq is unclear to me, although it is nevertheless a welcome diversion (even if such a diversion might seem to suggest a possible need for a separate thread).

Given that this thread is nevertheless likely to run and run - i.e. indefinitely -  let's wait and see what people's opinions are about its subject in a decade or three from now when Iraq has become absorbed into the Greater Europe that is the currently ever-expanding EC, along with Turkey (with which it has a short border and which has already been trying to apply for some time) and all the other Middle Eastern and north African countries (not to mention Norway, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Romania, the remains of the old Yugoslavia [including the recently independent state of Montenegro] and all the old Russian republics, each of which contains, to a greater or lesser degree, people wanting to get in on the European act (whatever that may or may not be) partly through a perception (or misperception) of EC membership as a route to economic salvation and partly due to a fear of the possible consequences of the rise and rise of China. Given the secession of Czechoslovakia into two countries, the aforementioned fragmentation of what was once Yugoslavia, the possible fragmentation of UK into at least its four currently constituent parts, the possibility that the Sunnis, Shi'as and Kurds in Iraq may eventually force the division of that country into at least three separate national entities, etc. etc., this "Greater Europe" may end up as consisting of substantially in excess of one hundred nations - now there's a prospect! The idea of a future Europe as an all-encompassing continent stretching from Greenland to Chukotsk in the north and from Morocco (possibly even Mauretania) to Kyrgyzstan in the south may be a long way off and its realistation inevitably replete with long-term problems, but the fear that anything smaller than such a unit may be incapable of independent survival in the face of the Chinese monolith on the one hand and the American one on the other cannot entirely be dismissed from our consciousness.

Best,

Alistair

[narsil26]

I'm sick of all this negativity in the liberal media about the war in Iraq. People are dying, sure, but they're mostly TERRORISTS who are bent on destruction and killing Americans. I think the US is doing a great job and I think our men and women in uniform should hang in there. Those Arabs couldn't take care of their own country under Saddam so we had to go and clean up the place for them.  Liberals say imperialism is bad blah blah but that's a lie. Without European colonialism much of the world would be much poorer.

FACT: Islam is a religion rooted in rape, pillage, and murder. People who deny this are ignoring history. Civilizations evolve at different rates, East Asian and European culture are farther ahead in evolution. I'm not racist, because I believe all cultures have the potential to reach a similar level of achievement but some just haven't gotten there yet. Case in point is the Islamic world, which was ahead of Europe during the Middle Ages but has fallen back and the rise of fundamentalism has made it into pretty much a medieval society now. This IS a clash of civilization and we're gonna spread democracy and freedom and win this skirmish. Sure, people are gonna die and there's gonna be fighting but that's just a small cost to pay for giving those brown kids a chance to go to school and their women a chance to live a human life.

Bush is a strong, decisive leader who is a true humanitarian. All that stuff about oil is made up by the liberal media. If the US profits from the oil it's simply a just reward for the great service we're doing in the Middle East.

God bless the U-S-A. Down with Arab terrorism. Long live Israel.

Most of the people dying are "terrorists"?  Over 2500 Americans are dead.   "FACT: once things settle down Iraqis will be safer under the US than under Saddam."  First of all, how can you claim this to be a fact when it's a supposable event in the future?  That's like saying "Fact:  When I get married and have a child, it will be a boy".  Why do you even bring up European Colonialism?  You really think the world is exactly the same as it was back then?  Or do you think things like Slave trade is perfectly okay?


"FACT: Islam is a religion rooted in rape, pillage, and murder."  What about Christianity?  The inquisition?  The burning and torturing of "heretics", and protestants, etc.?  What about the crusades where Christian knights from Europe slaughtered entire villages of innocent muslims and jews?     "I'm not racist"  well, you sure sound like it:  " Sure, people are gonna die and there's gonna be fighting but that's just a small cost to pay for giving those brown kids a chance to go to school and their women a chance to live a human life."   Nice going...

"Bush is a strong, decisive leader"   Oh, i'm sorry, I haven't seen much of that.    And i guess everything you hear bad about him, you just assume it's the evil liberal media, which is the worst excuse anyone could use.  Your comment about oil profits and doing a great job is just rediculous.   

You are one mighty uninformed person.

[bflatminor24]

Most of the people dying are "terrorists"?  Over 2500 Americans are dead.   "FACT: once things settle down Iraqis will be safer under the US than under Saddam."  First of all, how can you claim this to be a fact when it's a supposable event in the future?  That's like saying "Fact:  When I get married and have a child, it will be a boy".  Why do you even bring up European Colonialism?  You really think the world is exactly the same as it was back then?  Or do you think things like Slave trade is perfectly okay?


"FACT: Islam is a religion rooted in rape, pillage, and murder."  What about Christianity?  The inquisition?  The burning and torturing of "heretics", and protestants, etc.?  What about the crusades where Christian knights from Europe slaughtered entire villages of innocent muslims and jews?     "I'm not racist"  well, you sure sound like it:  " Sure, people are gonna die and there's gonna be fighting but that's just a small cost to pay for giving those brown kids a chance to go to school and their women a chance to live a human life."   Nice going...

"Bush is a strong, decisive leader"   Oh, i'm sorry, I haven't seen much of that.    And i guess everything you hear bad about him, you just assume it's the evil liberal media, which is the worst excuse anyone could use.  Your comment about oil profits and doing a great job is just rediculous.   

You are one mighty uninformed person.

You aren't so informed yourself. You picked out the obvious flaws in his argument, to which credit has been thoroughly abolished. Yet you fail to acknowledge several of your own misinformed statements.

I'm not Christian, nor a Bush supporter, but it's absolutely absurd for you to compare Muslim violence and outrage to the Crusades. First of all, the Inquisition and the Crusades and all of the religious debacles you mentioned happened centuries ago, the world has moved on. That's in the past.

Secondly, how would Christian injustices justify Muslim ones? So you're saying the Christians have been bad boys too...so that excuses other religious folk from behaving similarly, because they're just taking their turn? What a foolish argument. Completely unconvincing.

And you were wrong when you refuted his statement that "most of the deaths are terrorists." 2,500 dead Americans is NOTHING compared to the number of Iraqi insurgents and civilians who have been killed since this war started. I'm not calling them terrorists, but you can't trivialize their plight either. And your "newborn baby" analogy wasn't exactly fitting either. Overall you did a poor job of rebuttal, even though your opponent was no better. Both were dismal excuses for a discussion.

Ugh.

~Max

[steveie986]

DON'T BE A MORAN. GO USA!

[Derek]

I find it amusing how everyone claims to be so knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq. What do you know? Have you been there and talked to the people yourself? The media may or may not be in the grips of a corrupt government, painting an overly rosy or overly cynical view of the war. Who knows?

It seems to me there is a little bit of truth in everything---even unpleasant things. Perhaps Bush is onto something with earnestly wishing a secular democracy to flourish in the middle east---it might really change things for the better.  I've decided to give the whole situation the benefit of the doubt.


I'll tell you one thing I can say with absolute confidence---it appalls me anyone comes to the defense of Zarqawi wondering if we beat him before he was killed or honored his body or what not (the liberal media actually said things like this). 

I hope the godforsaken bastard SUFFERED MISERABLY before he died, he beheaded innocent people on video tape.

[anekdote]

The Iraq war will not curb Islamic terrorism. The War on Terrorism will not curb terrorism.

Many of the 9/11 hijackers were educated in Germany and trained (took pilot lessons) in the US. They weren't sneaky infiltrators as the media would have us believe. They were welcomed.

We could drastically reduce incidents involving Muslim initiated violence if we curbed Muslim immigration. Cartoon riots worldwide, French riots, rape epidemics (Scandinavia), calls for jihad, religiously-inspired murders (such as those of Theo van Gogh)... These could be largely prevented.

That is the whole hypocricy of this "war on terror." It is an overseas war which we are largely unaffected by!

Fanatical Muslim culture and Western culture clash. Anyone who denies this is blind. We have different moral codes, different religions, and a vastly different worldview.

Europe seems to be doing nothing about the problem. They are just sitting idley by as Muslims invade their continent through migration. Some experts predict that Sharia law will be instated in Europe soon. In Holland in 20 years, half of all children will be Muslim.

People have been predicting a Muslim Europe since 1990. Back then, their claim's could have been dismissed as alarmist. But not today.

[anekdote]

For an example...

In Norway (and the greater Scandinavia) there is an ongoing Muslim rape epidemic. What is happening is that Muslim men who have immigrated to Norway are considering Western women promiscuous whores because of the way they dress. In the Muslim worldview, these women's punishment is rape. So Muslim men carry this punishment out. They rape the women.

A social anthropologist at the University of Oslo, Unni Wikan, says that Western women should take some blame for dressing in a provocative manner (this anthropologist is also female). What an idiot! So basically, Muslims must not adapt to Western culture. We must adapt to theirs! With this mindset, no wonder Europe has such as problem.

[ahinton]

For an example...

In Norway (and the greater Scandinavia) there is an ongoing Muslim rape epidemic. What is happening is that Muslim men who have immigrated to Norway are considering Western women promiscuous whores because of the way they dress. In the Muslim worldview, these women's punishment is rape. So Muslim men carry this punishment out. They rape the women.

A social anthropologist at the University of Oslo, Unni Wikan, says that Western women should take some blame for dressing in a provocative manner (this anthropologist is also female). What an idiot! So basically, Muslims must not adapt to Western culture. We must adapt to theirs! With this mindset, no wonder Europe has such as problem.

Indeed - and perhaps the greater the Europe the greater and more widespread the problem...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Palestinians can't be terrorists? Well if that statement doesn't epitomize a non sequitur, I don't know what does.

The difference in power between Israel en Palestine is so huge it is absolutely impossible for palestinians to impose anything on Israel. Israel is occupying Palestine, not the other way around. So by your definition Palestinians are freedom fighters and Israel are terrorists. I disagree. I think they are both terrorists. I don't make a moral destinction based on who has the most power.

What part of "imposing political will" do you not understand? As soon as you agree to a universal set of human rights, anyone who seeks to deprive others of those is an imposer, and one who willfully defends those rights is a defender.

Because it isn't so black and white. First of, it is not clear how universal human rights are. People do not seem to agree with this.
And it is not so easy to say that in a conflict one side is the attacker and one side the defender. If you can split up conflicts in such a way then maybe I should give you some conflicts and ask how you split them up in good and bad.

What difference does it make if the police retrieve the money from the robber? This doesn't change anything. The police are still fighting to maintain the certain ethical boundaries set forth under our legal system. Obviously you have to agree to certain rights before you "defend" or "impose" them.

Doesn't the police enforce law? It means both defending and imposing. The robbers will now have the money and the police will want to take it from them. The robber may be defending but probably fleeing.
I guess your point is that there is a law and that the law is right. Some people add 'unlawful' to the definition of terrorism. The problem is that a lot of terror is international and thus there is no law or only a law on paper meaning it is inappropriate. Also, laws will not always be just or in agreement with human rights. I mean, every country, even the most civilized, violates a human right at some time. Does that give one the right to attack the state? The state will always be imposing. So when someone attacks the imposer does that make one the defender?

Also realise that there will always be three parties in a terrorist conflict. There will be the two opposing political parties and then there will be the general population. The general population is not the target but they will be the victim. They may be innocent or not. They may be civilian, police or military.
The moment you have to resort to violence you cannot prevent innocent casualties. It has happened in resistance agaisnt the Nazi's too. It always happens. But the question about ethics is of another nature.
 

And if you honestly harbor this opinion, then explain to me how someone who blows up a schoolbus full of children is committing the same level of travesty as one who shoots the suicide bomber before he reaches his target?

Ok, this is a discussion about ethics and not about terrorism. In the case of Israel they don't simply shoot the suicide bomber. They use american-rented Cobra helicopters to shoot cars of suspected Palestine militant leaders on the street, also killing innocents. They call this collecteral damage. Some palestinian militiants would love to blow up the Israel prime minister with helicopters. The problem is that they do not have the chance to do this. This is why they resort to soft targets because they are easy picking and because they will be world news. Also, terrorism works. If Palestine would just surrender to Israel they would stop to exist tomorrow. Same with Israel.

Yes, there is a difference in killing a bus of people and in killing suicide attackers. But that is not the point. Israel kills more innocent people that palestinians do. And in the case of Israel it is the official state itself and not a extremist minority. If the extremists on the Israel side wouldn't been kept in check by Israel then we would see a lot more violence. The problem is that the palestians don't have a government capable to control the extremists.

And we haven't talked about the Israeli violence. They destroy houses at random. They kill more people than the palestinians, they shoot missiles, fly helicopters, fire artillery, drive tanks, etc. Is that all self defence? Isn't it clear that both sides are both defending their rights and imposing on the rights of their opponent? I mean, do you know what limitations have been placed on the palestinians? In your black and white world the palestinians would be allowed to do anything and always be called 'freedom fights' and thus the good guys. How can one deny that the Israeli people live in freedom and prosperity while the palestinians are poor and oppressed?

One is protecting the basic human rights of those children to live unharmed, while the other seeks to impose his political will of harming innocent people to make a point.

Most children in the area are palestine. If Israel cared about children they would be on the other side of the conflect. Surely the Israeli political agenda is a lot more important that the basic rights of children.

And when did I introduce justification? I'm speaking about the act itself, irrespective of its justifications. I'm clarifying the already existent distinction between defending a right (such as the right to live, or the right to free speech) and imposing a will (such as forcing others to live in a ghetto, when there is no human right that entails forcing others to live in a ghetto, but there IS a human right that entails living unharmed...).

You mean that when one defends freedom or when one attacks someone elses this makes no difference for justification? Isn't that obviously the whole point of the distinction you are trying to make?

You bring up living in a ghetto? The people in Gaza live in a ghetto because they fleed from their homes. So Israel must be imposing will. But on the other side they also try to defend their children. Sometimes by killing armed palestinians but sometimes by killing three palestinian children in an attempt to save one Israeli one. So how can you split terrorism in half?

Terrorism is how I define it.
Then you have to look very careful at the nature of the acts to find out if it is justified or not. It is not as simple as using two words; defending and imposing. If the world was that simple there wouldn't be any terrorism. Then everyone would just be defending their own rights and never have any trouble with someone else.

What you are doing is giving terrorism a political charge. You shouldn't. You should just look at the objective events and see what the nature of the events is. Then you can look at the politican and ethical implications of these events.

[mephisto]

-----------------------

[prometheus]

That's because Israel has a gigantic media center to manage the, well propaganda, while Palestina has nothing.

So when there is an event then when a journalist wants the Israeli side of the story he visits a nice building where he is a guest, he received all kinds of information and video images plus their story. Then when you want the other side of the story there isn't even one person, let alone a whole ministery, where you can ask something. So there you have one side of the story that is extremely slick and polished. And on the other side there is nothing.

So yes, every good western person ignorant of the nuances in world politics and media warfare are pro-Israel.

But I didn't really want to apply this to Palestine-Israel. What about Kashmir? Hindu vs Muslims. Who are the terrorists there? What about Tjetjenia? What about Tibet where the Daila Lama calls for non-violence, even going so far as to threaten with resigning if the violence didn't stop. What about Colombia? What about that what happened in Libanon? And Niceragua? What about Cuba?

[ahinton]

In the 80ths one of the prime-ministers in Norway was very right-winged. He loved the USA loved Israel and everything a dumb ringht-wing-person would do. Than AFTER he pentioned he went to "Israel", and imediatly changed his opinion on everything in foreign politics. He is now a supporter of the Palestinian cause and norway`s biggets enemy of the Israeli state. Want I am tryingto accomplish with this post is to show you people who support Israel and USA that things are often VERY DIFFERENT from what the media tells you. And yes I have been to Palestine. The name of the former prime-minister is Kåre Willoch.

Best,

Bjørn Restan

curator/director,
of the Sarabji Archive

Who's "Sarabji"? Some kind of terrorist?

Best,

Alistair

[musik_man]

Brilliant method of debate; those of us who support Israel haven't examined the facts and arrived at a conclusion different than yours.  We've only been manipulated.  We're stupid.  Can't argue with that (and I mean that literally.)

BTW if 'nuance' involves accepting suicide bombing a cafe as a legitimate form of warfare, I'm glad to be so simple.

[mephisto]

Who's "Sarabji"? Some kind of terrorist?

Best,

Alistair

Actually he is a norwegian composer.

[mephisto]

Brilliant method of debate; those of us who support Israel haven't examined the facts and arrived at a conclusion different than yours.  We've only been manipulated.  We're stupid.  Can't argue with that (and I mean that literally.)

Yes that is exactly what I mean.

[musik_man]

Yes that is exactly what I mean.

Then why continue the debate?  You are obviously so much more well informed.

[gilad]

their is no excuse for killing innocent civilians.
israel has killed far to many recently in targeting militants under the guise of silf defence. not one should have to die.
Palestinian terror has claimed far to many civilian lives under the guise of freedom fighting. not one should have to die.
on sunday 2 israeli soldiers were killed and one was abducted.
He is 19 years old they will probably kill him, the same way 4 russian embassy workers were killed in iraq.
merciless killing.
the same way sunni muslims are massacring shiite muslims in iraq daily.
palestian muslims are sunni, they supported saddam hussein and his regime. it is hypocrasy at the highest level for them to do that demand self determination for themselves. as in iraq you had a minority sunni population ruling over a majority shiite populaton ruthlessly. where was the palestinian support for human rights then? there wasnt one, it suited them, because around eighty percent of palestians are sunnis.
The reasons for the israeli/palestian conflict are mystifying and both sides point to events in history to back their arguments up.
the bottom line is that they are both acting irresposibly.
Palestinians for targeting cummunters on buses, or people people eating in coffee shops.
the israelis for a ridiculously high number of innocent lives lost in targeting members of extremist groups.
But what happened on Sunday with Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit being abducted is going to be a turnng point in the conflict if he is not returned to israel in good health. that attack was aided by hamas, they are the official govenment of the palestinian people. what happened on sunday was an attack by one official power block against another.
i am trying to be as objective as i can, i dont think it willl help matters to escalate the conflict, but i think hamas have invited it, and if i know israel they will unrelentlessly begin to target hamas interests and members because it is hamas who have acted in their official capacity in the attack that transpired on sunday. it is unprecidented that the official ruling party of  "palestine" have attacked israel openly, they usually aid extremists financially and with arms, but have never done this before.
*** is going to hit the fan. war is once again going to take lives and destroy hopes.
about media coverage i suppose it depends on where you live, Palestians here are seen as angels, which they are not, israelis are seen as the devil.
truth is they are equally as bad.
it could have been israel that was the "refugee" nation, but it isnt, that is because they were more organised militarily in 1948 when palestians and arabs waged a war against them.
 if they hadnt been i promise you there would be no jewish refugee camps, because the arabs would have obliterated each and every one of them.
another thing....no one has ever come to the defense of the 600 000 jews that fled arab countries during and leading up to 1948. they left with only the clothes on there backs, they were never given any form of compesation for their homes, businesses and assets that was left behind. the only saviour for them was israel, no arab country has gone out its way to substantially help palestians apart from militarily.
one arab country that did house many palestinians was jordan, their amy killed thousands of Palestinians in ten days during september 1970 in what was to become known as black september. the Palestinian factions tried to take over jordan, even though jordan had been assisting them in buiilding an army to fight israel.
thats the thanks jordan got for trying to help them.

[mephisto]

Then why continue the debate?  You are obviously so much more well informed.

The reason why I kept posting was to make you come to that conclusion. And I am glad that you did. And you are right in saying that I am much more well informed than you, in this topic. You may know a lot more than me about other things.

[musik_man]

The reason why I kept posting was to make you come to that conclusion. And I am glad that you did. And you are right in saying that I am much more well informed than you, in this topic. You may know a lot more than me about other things.

I apologize for not being clearer in my sarcasm.

[bflatminor24]

That's because Israel has a gigantic media center to manage the, well propaganda, while Palestina has nothing.

So when there is an event then when a journalist wants the Israeli side of the story he visits a nice building where he is a guest, he received all kinds of information and video images plus their story. Then when you want the other side of the story there isn't even one person, let alone a whole ministery, where you can ask something. So there you have one side of the story that is extremely slick and polished. And on the other side there is nothing.

So yes, every good western person ignorant of the nuances in world politics and media warfare are pro-Israel.

But I didn't really want to apply this to Palestine-Israel. What about Kashmir? Hindu vs Muslims. Who are the terrorists there? What about Tjetjenia? What about Tibet where the Daila Lama calls for non-violence, even going so far as to threaten with resigning if the violence didn't stop. What about Colombia? What about that what happened in Libanon? And Niceragua? What about Cuba?

Hey Prometheus,

You're kind of an idiot. But I'll put that aside.

You're right on some things, wrong on others. You're definitely right about the fact that BOTH sides can be terrorists. That is 100% true, because both sides can contribute to moral depravity and abasement. The Kashmir conflict between Hindus and Muslims is the paragon of moral depravity. Both sides terrorize each other, imposing against human rights.

I'm not going to stand here and defend Israel, but I will say that overall, I agree with their tactics moreso than the Palestinians. And don't get all uppity and try to vindicate the Palestinians because they have no choice. They DO have a choice. Stop blowing up schoolbuses of children, and Israel will stop destroying your house and shooting your leaders. Israel is ALWAYS the first to propose peace, and ALWAYS the first to propose a ceasefire. Then some crazy Palestinian nut goes and ruins it for everyone.

And yes, overall, Palestinians exhibit more tendencies of terrorists than the Israelis do based on their careless tactics and nihilistic agenda. Defending a moral principle makes you a freedom fighter, attacking it makes you a terrorist.

You think I'm so black and white, that I'm too feeble-minded to comprehend shades of grey? That's because I had to dumb down the definition for you so that you would agree to no uncertain terms  in order to move on with the discussion. It's called disambiguation.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your response on this matter now that we've cleared a few things up.

~Max~

[prometheus]

Brilliant method of debate; those of us who support Israel haven't examined the facts and arrived at a conclusion different than yours.  We've only been manipulated.  We're stupid.  Can't argue with that (and I mean that literally.)

BTW if 'nuance' involves accepting suicide bombing a cafe as a legitimate form of warfare, I'm glad to be so simple.

Straw men isn't such a brilliant debating tactic. I never said that all those that support Israel are ignorant. I said if you are ignorant you can only end up supporting Israel. I support Israel, at least the existence of the state Israel. It was a mistake but now there is no way back. Very very poor straw man.

As for nuance. I never said suicide bombing is a ligitimate form of warfare. Another very bad straw man. My point that the reason why this happens is because these people feel they have no choice. They hit soft targets or they do nothing. Just like the americans had no chooice in killing a couple of woman and children to kill Zarqawi. If the palestinians had a choice they would rather not kill children but only the really important people.

Once could argue that the target is the state of Israel and the collateral damage are the children. Also, it's not like they bomb childrens busses in particular. They just bomb busses. It's not that palestinians hate Israeli children or something like that. Of course you know this but people seem susceptible to the rhetoric.

on sunday 2 israeli soldiers were killed and one was abducted.
He is 19 years old they will probably kill him, the same way 4 russian embassy workers were killed in iraq.

Weren't those soldiers valid targets? One could call this fair play. The palestinians went through a lot of trouble, digging a 400 meter long tunnel, to get a chance to shoot Israeli soldiers and win.
As for the kidnapped guy. Depending in who's hands he is, if they are smart they will use it as negotiation leverage. Something that the Palestinians don't have and what they need for their survival. This is what the whole terrorism is about. To gain leaverage. The Israeli state is there to stay. Palestinia is occupied and they want to end this. The world supports Israel in large, US ahead. Palestinia needs to drag as much as possible out of the negotiations.
And that is Israels tactic. To reduce Palestina as a possible partner and then to draw the borders by themselves, spitting Palestina up in several Islands. Quasi-Apartheid.

[ahinton]

Actually he is a norwegian composer.

Bjørn Restan
Curator/director
the Sarabji archive

Then please start a new thread in which you can tell us all about him; I'm quite sure that Piano Forum menbers will be anxious to learn about this composer. It sounds to be a rather odd name for a Norwegian, though - but then "Greig" probably did also, which is almost certainly why Edvard Grieg's forebears changed their surname to Grieg, so that they could sound a little less Aberdonian.

Anyway - we all await, with bated breath, a biography, worklist, discography, performance news, etc. - not to mention when and why you took on your rôle as his(/her?) archivist.

Best,

Alistair Hinton (a Scottish composer, just as Grieg was...)

[musik_man]

Prometheus, first let me say that I was responding in part to mephisto, but lets look at what you said.

"So yes, every good western person ignorant of the nuances in world politics and media warfare are pro-Israel."

So no you don't state that all Israel supporters are ignorant, but that all ignorant people support Israel.  Of course it's a silly distinction to make and doesn't make the arguement any more intelligent.  I wonder why someone so fond of nuance has to speak in such stupid absolutes.

And your nuance in war seems to reduce to this.  It's ok to murder civilians if it is the most effective method of retaliation.  But the target isn't 'the state of Israel.'  The target is the bus that he blows up.  You can't call the innocent victims 'collateral damage.'  The suicide bombings are committed specifically kill them.

[prometheus]

You're definitely right about the fact that BOTH sides can be terrorists.

But can both sides be both defending and imposing? Both freedom fighter/defender and terrorist at the same time? Using violence in both good and bad ways? Because that is my point. You think you can draw a line based on clear distinctions. I say you cannot do that.

That is 100% true, because both sides can contribute to moral depravity and abasement. The Kashmir conflict between Hindus and Muslims is the paragon of moral depravity. Both sides terrorize each other, imposing against human rights.

But then, when you want to protect human rights, what do you do? In this case both sides will be protecting their human rights at the expense of the human rights of their opponents. Sure, they often have some choice to reduce atrocities but in their eyes they do not.
If one side would suddenly stop they would suffer the concequences.

I'm not going to stand here and defend Israel, but I will say that overall, I agree with their tactics moreso than the Palestinians. And don't get all uppity and try to vindicate the Palestinians because they have no choice. They DO have a choice. Stop blowing up schoolbuses of children, and Israel will stop destroying your house and shooting your leaders.

Will Israel give back their land? Dismantle the settlements? Give back Jerusalem? Will Palestinians that have been driven out of their homes be allowed to go back and have all the civil rights of jewish citizens? No, of course not. I am not saying they to but this is what the conflict is primarily about. You are saying that Palestinia should uncontitionally surrender and hope for the best. Put their faith into the hands of their enemies.

Israel is ALWAYS the first to propose peace, and ALWAYS the first to propose a ceasefire. Then some crazy Palestinian nut goes and ruins it for everyone.

Israel started the whole thing. Israel started the second intifada. Israel has been refusing negociations.

And yes, overall, Palestinians exhibit more tendencies of terrorists than the Israelis do based on their careless tactics and nihilistic agenda. Defending a moral principle makes you a freedom fighter, attacking it makes you a terrorist.

So Palestinia are just more decadent, untermenschen. They are less human than we are?
And what moral principle is Israel defending? Or the US? Or any world superpower? Didn't everyone read Machiavelli? Don't they all know that the moment they start to care about morals they will waste or lose power?

You think I'm so black and white, that I'm too feeble-minded to comprehend shades of grey? That's because I had to dumb down the definition for you so that you would agree to no uncertain terms  in order to move on with the discussion. It's called disambiguation.

What do you mean? I just don't get why you want to remove terrorism that you approve of from the definition of terrorism, which is obviously very very negatively charged.
Not saying that you approve of Israel's actions. But you create the space to do that.

That is the problem with calling that what the resistance in Europe during 1940-45 did, that what the ANC did, that what Palestinians did and that what OBL terrorism?

Freedom fighters are terrorists if they use violence for politicial gain. Maybe you should look at some cases in Africa. There rebels, with the support of the people, overthrow the  tyrranical government and then they become the tyranical government themselves. Those ex-government people that flee then become the rebels. That's exactly the life of Charles Taylor. And that is also what happened in Afghanistan with the mujahideen, later becomming the Taliban.

[prometheus]

And your nuance in war seems to reduce to this.  It's ok to murder civilians if it is the most effective method of retaliation.  The target isn't 'the state of Israel.'  The target is the bus that he blows up.  You can't call the innocent victims 'collateral damage.'  The suicide bombings are committed specifically kill them.

They aren't trying to destroy the Israeli demographics. They try to create political shock. That's why it is called terrorism and not genocide. The people are collateral damage in the same sense as it is in the cases of violence by the US and Israel.

I never said it is ok. I said that it happens because they do not have much choice. People ask and wonder: "Why do they kill innocent people? Why don't they kill Israeli soldiers or Sharon or Perez." The answer to why Palestinians have to use such depraved methods is not because they are immoral decadent people but because they do not have the room to choose. They either do something or they don't.

[gilad]

Weren't those soldiers valid targets? One could call this fair play. The palestinians went through a lot of trouble, digging a 400 meter long tunnel, to get a chance to shoot Israeli soldiers and win.

yes they were definitely fair targets, i can't wrong them on that. Soldiers are legitimate targets for attacks, i wouldnt call this attack a terror attack at all.
But Hamas' involvement in implementing the attack is going to open up a can of worms like never before. That being that hamas is the chosen leader of the Palestinians, therefore i see the attack not as terror, but an attack on one state by another "state". it is more an act of war than terror.
As for the israel being there to stay, try telling that to hamas.

The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

the whole thing can be found here...https://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
i have never read it, but will read in full now myself.
but it is clear tht negotiations are seen as negative by palestinians towards their national aspirations.

As for the life of the kidnapped soldier, i am not optimistic, but hopful, that is after seing the treatment of hostages by similar groups in iraq recently and the killing of three israeli soldiers kidnapped by hizbolah in 2000.

Please also remember that the protocols of zion are false and ridiculous and plane insane, more on that here https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0685175073/002-1556619-6093647?v=glance&n=283155
it seems as though the hamas charter is based on this and other similar material.

also it is not fair to say israel started the second intifada, i was living in israel when it broke out, i can tell you that israelis thought peace was finally going to be realised, it was the height of diplomacy between the two sides.

A lot of tension was developing from the palestian side leading up to the intifada, some were not happy with the negotiated agreement, which by the way was not final, but a starting point, a very good one.

Ariel sharon, one hard headed israeli decided to pay a visit to the temple mount on which the dome of the rock is built, he took with him gaurds of course.
now that is not a train smash, it did not call for or necessitate the actions that were to lead to the 2nd intifada. The arab side was tense to begin with. I was at the arab market in east jerusalem the day before that all happened, and i can't tell you how tense it was there that day. there was a feeling that somethng huge was about to happen, i find out what the next day, and then came bus bombs and full scale madness from both sides.

[mephisto]

Then please start a new thread in which you can tell us all about him; I'm quite sure that Piano Forum menbers will be anxious to learn about this composer. It sounds to be a rather odd name for a Norwegian, though - but then "Greig" probably did also, which is almost certainly why Edvard Grieg's forebears changed their surname to Grieg, so that they could sound a little less Aberdonian.

Anyway - we all await, with bated breath, a biography, worklist, discography, performance news, etc. - not to mention when and why you took on your rôle as his(/her?) archivist.

Best,

Alistair Hinton (a Scottish composer, just as Grieg was...)

His(indeed it`s a man) complete name is Kaikhosru Shapurji Sarabji( 1900- ). He is a composer of norwegian nationality, but of mixed Indian Parsi and Spanish-Italian/Sicilian descent. Attending a performance of Sorabji`s opus clavicembalisticum he became so emotional, this can be shown in a simple quote: Bach is the best composer whon have ever lived, but Sorabji is the only! Naturally he changed his name from Kjartan Johan into Kaikhosru Shapurji Sarabji( as a result of his spirituel conection to the great composer). After the performance of opus clavicembalisticum Sarabji(a good double bass player in his own right) composed a monumental piece for double bass called "opus clavicembalisticum for solo double bass, an etude in everything". Its structur is identical to Sorabji`s opusc clavicembalisticum.

In 1989 Sarabji wrote the criticly acclaimed bio(in norway, it`s not published anywere else) about Sorabji, naming it "Sorabji an legende etter si eiga død", or "Sorabji a legend after his own death".

Some other works:
2 pieces: In the cold house, toccatina
3 Frammenti Aforistici
Despir Despir, eperdu eperdu
Piano sonata no1 for double bass(in one movement)
Piano sonata no2 for double bass(in one movement)
Piano sonata no3 for double bass
Piano sonata no4 for double bass
Fantasiettina sul illustre double bass

As you can see, he is not the most original composer of all time. But he never intended to be either, quoting him, Sorabji and Sciarrinio made huge castles I make music that I like to play.

Anyway I think he is a nice guy. Sadly all of his works were lost in a fire in 1970, incidently the same thing happened to a much better norwegian composer, Geirr Tveitt, in the same year

Do you want anymore information?

[ahinton]

His(indeed it`s a man) complete name is Kaikhosru Shapurji Sarabji( 1900- ). He is a composer of norwegian nationality, but of mixed Indian Parsi and Spanish-Italian/Sicilian descent. Attending a performance of Sorabji`s opus clavicembalisticum he became so emotional, this can be shown in a simple quote: Bach is the best composer whon have ever lived, but Sorabji is the only! Naturally he changed his name from Kjartan Johan into Kaikhosru Shapurji Sarabji( as a result of his spirituel conection to the great composer). After the performance of opus clavicembalisticum Sarabji(a good double bass player in his own right) composed a monumental piece for double bass called "opus clavicembalisticum for solo double bass, an etude in everything". Its structur is identical to Sorabji`s opusc clavicembalisticum.

In 1989 Sarabji wrote the criticly acclaimed bio(in norway, it`s not published anywere else) about Sorabji, naming it "Sorabji an legende etter si eiga død", or "Sorabji a legend after his own death".

Some other works:
2 pieces: In the cold house, toccatina
3 Frammenti Aforistici
Despir Despir, eperdu eperdu
Piano sonata no1 for double bass(in one movement)
Piano sonata no2 for double bass(in one movement)
Piano sonata no3 for double bass
Piano sonata no4 for double bass
Fantasiettina sul illustre double bass

As you can see, he is not the most original composer of all time. But he never intended to be either, quoting him, Sorabji and Sciarrinio made huge castles I make music that I like to play.

Anyway I think he is a nice guy. Sadly all of his works were lost in a fire in 1970, incidently the same thing happened to a much better norwegian composer, Geirr Tveitt, in the same year

Do you want anymore information?

Well, I think tha this is plenty of information to be going on with and I am sure that many Piano Forum members will be as delighted to have it as they will be grateful to you for going to the trouble to provide it.

There are just a few small comments and questions, if that's OK with you.

You gave his dates as "(1900- )".
Is he therefore still alive?

You wrote "Attending a performance of Sorabji`s opus clavicembalisticum".
Which performance was that?

You also wrote "he changed his name from Kjartan Johan into Kaikhosru Shapurji Sarabji( as a result of his spirituel conection to the great composer".
You've been reading about Allgén, haven't you?! (for anyone who doesn't already know, Allgén [1920-1990] was a Swedish composer, so not the most obvious kind of composer for a Norwegian to want to read about).

You then wrote "In 1989 Sarabji wrote the criticly acclaimed bio(in norway, it`s not published anywere else) about Sorabji, naming it "Sorabji an legende etter si eiga død", or "Sorabji a legend after his own death".
Who is its publisher?

You claim that "he is not the most original composer of all time", yet your work list (is this comprehensive, or merely an extract?) appears to evidence otherwise; is it not surely "original" to write not just one but several piano sonatas for the double bass? The nearest I can think of to this is the piece entitled "Après une Lecture de Liszt", which is an arrangement, by the curator of the Sorabji Archive of Liszt's "Norma" Fantasy, for viola and double bass.

You didn't mention his famous works "Le Jardin Tundra", "Geilostan", "Concerto per suonare en Svalbard" and I am especially surprised that you omitted mention of his "Variazione Moldiziosa e Per Vadsø on "Åse's Life", given that the theme on which it is based is by Grieg.

Finally, you wrote "Sadly all of his works were lost in a fire in 1970, incidently the same thing happened to a much better norwegian composer, Geirr Tveitt, in the same year".
You really have been reading about Allgén, haven't you! The even sadder thing about him, however, is (as you and other readers here may already know) the composer perished in the fire along with his music scores; one wonders whether Allgén (to whom this happened in 1990) was following someone else's example...

Just one last question; you describe yourself as the curator of Sarabji's archive: if all his works were lost in a fire 36 years ago, what exactly are you curating?

Yours in archivistic fraternity,

Alistair

[jas]

It sounds to be a rather odd name for a Norwegian, though - but then "Greig" probably did also, which is almost certainly why Edvard Grieg's forebears changed their surname to Grieg, so that they could sound a little less Aberdonian.

Was Grieg Aberdonian? So am I... Not that that has anything at all to do with the Iraq war, but hey.

His(indeed it`s a man) complete name is Kaikhosru Shapurji Sarabji( 1900- ). He is a composer of norwegian nationality, but of mixed Indian Parsi and Spanish-Italian/Sicilian descent. Attending a performance of Sorabji`s opus clavicembalisticum he became so emotional, this can be shown in a simple quote: Bach is the best composer whon have ever lived, but Sorabji is the only! Naturally he changed his name from Kjartan Johan into Kaikhosru Shapurji Sarabji( as a result of his spirituel conection to the great composer). After the performance of opus clavicembalisticum Sarabji(a good double bass player in his own right) composed a monumental piece for double bass called "opus clavicembalisticum for solo double bass, an etude in everything". Its structur is identical to Sorabji`s opusc clavicembalisticum.

In 1989 Sarabji wrote the criticly acclaimed bio(in norway, it`s not published anywere else) about Sorabji, naming it "Sorabji an legende etter si eiga død", or "Sorabji a legend after his own death".

Some other works:
2 pieces: In the cold house, toccatina
3 Frammenti Aforistici
Despir Despir, eperdu eperdu
Piano sonata no1 for double bass(in one movement)
Piano sonata no2 for double bass(in one movement)
Piano sonata no3 for double bass
Piano sonata no4 for double bass
Fantasiettina sul illustre double bass

As you can see, he is not the most original composer of all time. But he never intended to be either, quoting him, Sorabji and Sciarrinio made huge castles I make music that I like to play.

Anyway I think he is a nice guy. Sadly all of his works were lost in a fire in 1970, incidently the same thing happened to a much better norwegian composer, Geirr Tveitt, in the same year

Do you want anymore information?

It's nice to see someone putting a bit of imaginitive effort in.

[mephisto]

Well, I think tha this is plenty of information to be going on with and I am sure that many Piano Forum members will be as delighted to have it as they will be grateful to you for going to the trouble to provide it.

There are just a few small comments and questions, if that's OK with you.

You gave his dates as "(1900- )".
Is he therefore still alive?

You wrote "Attending a performance of Sorabji`s opus clavicembalisticum".
Which performance was that?

You also wrote "he changed his name from Kjartan Johan into Kaikhosru Shapurji Sarabji( as a result of his spirituel conection to the great composer".
You've been reading about Allgén, haven't you?! (for anyone who doesn't already know, Allgén [1920-1990] was a Swedish composer, so not the most obvious kind of composer for a Norwegian to want to read about).

You then wrote "In 1989 Sarabji wrote the criticly acclaimed bio(in norway, it`s not published anywere else) about Sorabji, naming it "Sorabji an legende etter si eiga død", or "Sorabji a legend after his own death".
Who is its publisher?

You claim that "he is not the most original composer of all time", yet your work list (is this comprehensive, or merely an extract?) appears to evidence otherwise; is it not surely "original" to write not just one but several piano sonatas for the double bass? The nearest I can think of to this is the piece entitled "Après une Lecture de Liszt", which is an arrangement, by the curator of the Sorabji Archive of Liszt's "Norma" Fantasy, for viola and double bass.

You didn't mention his famous works "Le Jardin Tundra", "Geilostan", "Concerto per suonare en Svalbard" and I am especially surprised that you omitted mention of his "Variazione Moldiziosa e Per Vadsø on "Åse's Life", given that the theme on which it is based is by Grieg.

Finally, you wrote "Sadly all of his works were lost in a fire in 1970, incidently the same thing happened to a much better norwegian composer, Geirr Tveitt, in the same year".
You really have been reading about Allgén, haven't you! The even sadder thing about him, however, is (as you and other readers here may already know) the composer perished in the fire along with his music scores; one wonders whether Allgén (to whom this happened in 1990) was following someone else's example...

Just one last question; you describe yourself as the curator of Sarabji's archive: if all his works were lost in a fire 36 years ago, what exactly are you curating?

Yours in archivistic fraternity,

Alistair

Oh, so many questions so little time

Indeed he is still alive, albeit he has stopped composing as a result of his bad hearing. He lives in a big, albeit secret castle in Wales.

I am not sure wich performance he attended, since I have a farily bad memory. But if I remember right the performance was in London. Presumably Wigmore hall?

I have to admitt never having heard about Allgén.

The publisher of the book is "Gyldendal":https://www.gyldendal.no/. The book is easy to get if you ever will visit the Universitetsbiblioteket in Oslo.

The work list is merely an extract. He also wrote some songs(for soprano an double bass), a concerto for double bass, many solo symphonies for double bass(the longest convering about 1000 pages of music...... Yes considering the originality of Alistar Hinton`s works I didn`t find Sarabji`s music worthy of something like " it is indeed possibly some of the most original music ever published" or something in that direction.

I find it strange that you mention some works of Sarabji, a composer you have never heard about. Care to give an answer.? The strangest thing is that Sarabji never wrote those peces, exept Geilostan wich he composed as a result of his favourite parot who died in Geilo. But you probably know this already.

Again I don`t know who Allgen is(was?).

My goal as a curator of his archive is to make sure that some of his music gets famous. There exists a few recordings of Sarabji, Alistar Hanton, John Ogda, the famous Jhon Powell, Dona Amateo, Geoffrey Douglas Madga, and Roger Stevenson playing Sarabji`s music. Sarabji often said to me: I am not a double bass player, I repeat I am not a double bass player. He also said the same in a phone call to Michael Hibberman. All of these recordings are available India. And my goal is therefor to make somebody -  hopefully Aistar Hanton to transcribe them.


Trivia:
Favourite sonata of the 20th century: Medtner night wind sonata. For some reason he did not like Godowsky`s sonata.

Favourite pianist was Egon Petri.

Sarabji has two children: Åse and Gyda.

Any more question?

curator/ directo
Sarabji Archive

[ahinton]

Oh, so many questions so little time

Indeed he is still alive, albeit he has stopped composing as a result of his bad hearing. He lives in a big, albeit secret castle in Wales.

That's interesting; Alexander Abercrombie, who has edited and typeset almost 2,000 pages of Sorabji's works to date, also lives in Wales (albeit not in a castle), so I wonder if he knows him? I must ask him! Does he speak Welsh? I hope that he is being well cared for there, especially given that he is now 105 or 106 yeas of age.

I am not sure wich performance he attended, since I have a farily bad memory. But if I remember right the performance was in London. Presumably Wigmore hall?

OC has never been played in Wigmore Hall. Perhaps you can tell us whose performance he heard and when; if so, we might be able to work out where it was played.

I have to admitt never having heard about Allgén.

Well, you've heard of him now! A Swedish composer, as I mentioned. His 160-minute-long sonata for solo violin has just been released on the Swedish record label BIS.

The publisher of the book is "Gyldendal":https://www.gyldendal.no/. The book is easy to get if you ever will visit the Universitetsbiblioteket in Oslo.

Surely there must be copies elsewhere? - the publisher must have distribution channels - although it seems that it is now out of print in any case, as Gyldendal do not appear to have it any longer.

He also wrote some songs(for soprano an double bass)

That's an interesting coincidence; the finale of my own string quintet incorporates an extended aria (of some 13 minutes) for soprano and double bass.

I find it strange that you mention some works of Sarabji, a composer you have never heard about. Care to give an answer.? The strangest thing is that Sarabji never wrote those peces, exept Geilostan wich he composed as a result of his favourite parot who died in Geilo. But you probably know this already.

Well, I certainly hadn't heard of him until you mentioned him, but now that you have alerted me to his existence, I have naturally done a bit of research; that is what we archivists often do, is it not? That research does appear to suggest that those pieces with whose composition I credited him are ones that he did indeed write - at least in the same sense that he wrote those with which you yourself credit him. By the way, I did indeed know about the parrot; its name was Valentin and legend had it that it died when a bookcase containing a large collection of double reed instruments fell on it (although the eminent scholar Ragnald Smeitt doubted the veracity of this tale).

My goal as a curator of his archive is to make sure that some of his music gets famous. There exists a few recordings of Sarabji, Alistar Hanton, John Ogda, the famous Jhon Powell, Dona Amateo, Geoffrey Douglas Madga, and Roger Stevenson playing Sarabji`s music.

That is indeed a most worthy goal, I must tell you from personal experience. I still do not, however, understand how you can hope to achieve it if all the music was destroyed in a fire more than three and a half decades ago; nor do I understand how the recordings of his music were made, given not only that it had all gone up in flames so long ago but also because all of the people you mention above were surely not double bass players - for example, I thought that "Magda" was a character in Menotti's opera "The Consul".

All of these recordings are available India.

Why would recordings of a Norwegian composer's music that no longer exists played by people who have never seen it and don't play the instrument for which it was all written be available in India? And on what record label are they? Might it perhaps be that, given the true state of existence of this music, these recordings are in reality merely an example of some kind of Indian rope trick?

Trivia:
Favourite sonata of the 20th century: Medtner night wind sonata. For some reason he did not like Godowsky`s sonata.

Favourite pianist was Egon Petri.

Sarabji has two children: Åse and Gyda.

Firstly, please do not appear to undermine your valuable work by describing some of the information that you present as "trivia"; nothing of this kind is "trivia" to a dedicated archivist, surely? I am somewhat surprised that he valued that Medtner sonata - great as it undoubtedly is - above the double bass sonata by Hindemith; likewise, it seems strange that his favourite pianist was not Sergey Koussevitzky. Of his two children, Åse is of course dead, as well we know (as far as i remember, she was a soprano who for most of her career was represented in UK by Ibsen Tillett); what can you tell us about Gyda?


At this point I must tell you that, even if some of the readers of this thread may not neessarily appreciate all the subtleties and sophisticated Scandinavian nuances of your Norwegian sense of humour as much as I do, your two posts will surely have come as a most welcome respite from all those others in this thread about supporting - or not - the war in Iraq, even though this digression does not, strictly speaking, entirely comply with the forum rules about staying on topic in threads.

Thank you for your entertaining diversion.

As a parting shot, I return to the subject of Sweden, a country of which you may well be aware. I once heard a Swedish person tell me that Norway is a very important country, because it serves the valuable purpose of protecting Sweden from the ravages of the North Sea. To return to the thread topic, however, I confess that I am not well versed in Norway's position vis-à-vis the war in Iraq...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Was Grieg Aberdonian? So am I... Not that that has anything at all to do with the Iraq war, but hey.
It's nice to see someone putting a bit of imaginitive effort in.

As far as I recall, Edvard Grieg's grandfather's surname was Greig and he hailed from Aberdeen. None of this diversion has anything to do with the Iraq war (as I noted earlier) - but "hey" indeed - unless, of course, Nils decides that enough "hay" has already been made by it.

It's also nice to see such imaginative effort being appreciated by another reader of this thread; it sure beats all the venom, spleen, etc. that is occasionally wont to appear on this forum...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

I apologize for not being clearer in my sarcasm.

Considering your other dumb right-wing posts I knew that you were sarcastic.

[musik_man]

Considering your other dumb right-wing posts I knew that you were sarcastic.

Are we feeling petty today?

[mephisto]

Are we feeling petty today?

We`re feeling pretty

[ahinton]

We`re feeling pretty

© Stephen Sondheim (with music by Leonard Bernstein)...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

© Stephen Sondheim (with music by Leonard Bernstein)...

Best,

Alistair

Do not forget Sarabji`s transcription for soprano and double bass

[ahinton]

Do not forget Sarabji`s transcription for soprano and double bass

As if I could! I hope, however, that he didn't fall foul of Mr Sondheim's legal representatives or of the Leonard Bernstein Estate as a consequence thereof!...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

As if I could! I hope, however, that he didn't fall foul of Mr Sondheim's legal representatives or of the Leonard Bernstein Estate as a consequence thereof!...

Best,

Alistair

Order his book and read it!

[ahinton]

Order his book and read it!

But I cannot, my goodly Norse friend, for, as I mentioned, I cannot find it on the website you mention and I (rightly or wrongly) assume it to be out of print.

On the other hand, you can listen to the aria for soprano and double bass in my string quintet, since it is not out of print, is on the Altarus label (AIR-CD-9066[3] - a 3-CD boxed set in which you'll find the aria on CD 2) and is available from various sources, including The Sorabji Archive, no less.

So - you have the current advantage over me, methinks...

Best,

Alistair