Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German: [ˈdiːtʁɪç ˈboːnhœfɐ]; 4 February 1906 – 9 April 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident, and key founding member of the Confessing Church. His writings on Christianity’s role in the secular world have become widely … Continue reading

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German: [?di?t??ç ?bo?nhœf?]; 4 February 1906 – 9 April 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident, and key founding member of the Confessing Church. His writings on Christianity’s role in the secular world have become widely influential, and his book The Cost of Discipleship became a modern classic.[1]

Apart from his theological writings, Bonhoeffer was known for his staunch resistance to the Nazi dictatorship, including vocal opposition to Hitler’s euthanasia program and genocidal persecution of the Jews.[2] He was arrested in April 1943 by the Gestapoand imprisoned at Tegel prison for one and a half years. Later he was transferred to a Nazi concentration camp. After being associated with the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, he was quickly tried, along with other accused plotters, including former members of the Abwehr (the German Military Intelligence Office), and then executed by hanging on 9 April 1945 as the Nazi regime was collapsing.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German: [ˈdiːtʁɪç ˈboːnhœfɐ]; 4 February 1906 – 9 April 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident, and key founding member of the Confessing Church. His writings on Christianity’s role in the secular world have become widely … Continue reading

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German: [?di?t??ç ?bo?nhœf?]; 4 February 1906 – 9 April 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident, and key founding member of the Confessing Church. His writings on Christianity’s role in the secular world have become widely influential, and his book The Cost of Discipleship became a modern classic.[1]

Apart from his theological writings, Bonhoeffer was known for his staunch resistance to the Nazi dictatorship, including vocal opposition to Hitler’s euthanasia program and genocidal persecution of the Jews.[2] He was arrested in April 1943 by the Gestapoand imprisoned at Tegel prison for one and a half years. Later he was transferred to a Nazi concentration camp. After being associated with the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, he was quickly tried, along with other accused plotters, including former members of the Abwehr (the German Military Intelligence Office), and then executed by hanging on 9 April 1945 as the Nazi regime was collapsing.

The Roman Army

Published on Dec 26, 2013 I created this video with the YouTube Video Editor (http://www.youtube.com/editor) Much of the success of the Roman army can be attributed to the command structure also. Though after the Marius Reforms the army was much … Continue reading

Published on Dec 26, 2013

I created this video with the YouTube Video Editor (http://www.youtube.com/editor)
Much of the success of the Roman army can be attributed to the command structure also. Though after the Marius Reforms the army was much more organized and therefore more effective, the early Roman Republic army was still organized legibly, not into hordes. The Hastati and Principes were divided into ten groups of 120 men called maniples, and the Triarii into ten maniples of sixty men. There were ten maniples of Hastati and Principes in each legion, totaling 2400 men. The remaining force was made up of 1200 Velites. Each maniple had two centurions, in which the most experienced held the command of the maniple. A legate was in command of the whole legion consisting of 4200 men.

Another part of the army’s tactics was to build a camp at the end of every day’s march. The afternoon saw the rapid construction of an army camp, and the night was reserved for rest from the day’s march and labor. The camp served multiple purposes. First and foremost it served as a nightly defense against surprise attacks and as a base to retreat to just in case a defeat should ever happen.

The construction of camps also gave the soldiers and officers a place to rest peacefully. Much of the Roman army’s success depended on coolness of temper. A Roman soldier was kept from nervous strain as long as possible, so as to perform well under the intense stress of battle. The existence of a camp contributed greatly to this. It also exemplified the tenacity of the Romans. If defeated in battle, they would not have to retreat far, and they would fight again the next day, if not the same day.

Also, instead of being pushed back far back into their own lands, the camp served as a fortified stronghold, which could be used to fend off the left over attackers from the previous battle until reinforcements could arrive.

John Hilde is a collector of ancient armor and weapons as well as modern day collectibles. Get more information regarding roman armor

Published on Jan 28, 2014
Riot police in South Korea fend off rioters with ageless techniques.


Purity of arms

The Dahiya strategy Israel finally realizes that Arabs should be accountable for their leaders’ acts Yaron London Published: 10.06.08, 11:04 The “Dahiya strategy” is a term that will become entrenched in our security discourse. Dahiya is the Shiite quarter in … Continue reading

The Dahiya strategy

Israel finally realizes that Arabs should be accountable for their leaders’ acts

Yaron London

Published: 10.06.08, 11:04

The “Dahiya strategy” is a term that will become entrenched in our security discourse. Dahiya is the Shiite quarter in Beirut that our pilots turned into rubble during the Second Lebanon War.

 

In an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth Friday, IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot uttered clear words that essentially mean the following: In the next clash with Hizbullah we won’t bother to hunt for tens of thousands of rocket launchers and we won’t spill our soldiers’ blood in attempts to overtake fortified Hizbullah positions. Rather, we shall destroy Lebanonand won’t be deterred by the protests of the “world.”


The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel’s Undermining Of International Law

February 23, 2010

The Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008/January 2009 was not merely a military assault on a primarily civilian population, impoverished and the victim of occupation and besiegement these past 42 years. It was also part of an ongoing assault on international humanitarian law by a highly coordinated team of Israeli lawyers, military officers, PR people and politicians, led by (no less) a philosopher of ethics. It is an effort coordinated as well with other governments whose political and military leaders are looking for ways to pursue “asymmetrical warfare” against peoples resisting domination and the plundering of their resources and labor without the encumbrances of human rights and current international law. It is a campaign that is making progress and had better be taken seriously by us all.

The code of purity of arms (Hebrew: ???? ?????, Tohar HaNeshek) is one of the values stated in the Israel Defense Force’s official doctrine of ethics, The Spirit of the IDF.
Despite doubts when confronted by indiscriminate terrorism, purity of arms remains the guiding rule for the Israeli forces.

According to Norman Solomon, the concepts of Havlaga and purity of arms arise out of the ethical and moral values stemming from the tradition of Israel, extrapolation from the Jewish Halakha, and the desire for moral approval and hence political support from the world community.

These foundations have elicited a fair degree of consensus among Jews, both religious and secular, and are incorporated in the official Doctrine Statement of the Israel Defense Forces.

The extremities of acceptance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_of_arms

http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com/2009/07/purity-of-arms-impurity-of-claims.html

http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2009/01/have-your-cake.html

http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-front-lines.html
http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2007/04/purity-of-arms.html
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21478

Purity of arms

The Dahiya strategy Israel finally realizes that Arabs should be accountable for their leaders’ acts Yaron London Published: 10.06.08, 11:04 The “Dahiya strategy” is a term that will become entrenched in our security discourse. Dahiya is the Shiite quarter in … Continue reading

The Dahiya strategy

Israel finally realizes that Arabs should be accountable for their leaders’ acts

Yaron London

Published: 10.06.08, 11:04

The “Dahiya strategy” is a term that will become entrenched in our security discourse. Dahiya is the Shiite quarter in Beirut that our pilots turned into rubble during the Second Lebanon War.

 

In an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth Friday, IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot uttered clear words that essentially mean the following: In the next clash with Hizbullah we won’t bother to hunt for tens of thousands of rocket launchers and we won’t spill our soldiers’ blood in attempts to overtake fortified Hizbullah positions. Rather, we shall destroy Lebanonand won’t be deterred by the protests of the “world.”


The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel’s Undermining Of International Law

February 23, 2010

The Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008/January 2009 was not merely a military assault on a primarily civilian population, impoverished and the victim of occupation and besiegement these past 42 years. It was also part of an ongoing assault on international humanitarian law by a highly coordinated team of Israeli lawyers, military officers, PR people and politicians, led by (no less) a philosopher of ethics. It is an effort coordinated as well with other governments whose political and military leaders are looking for ways to pursue “asymmetrical warfare” against peoples resisting domination and the plundering of their resources and labor without the encumbrances of human rights and current international law. It is a campaign that is making progress and had better be taken seriously by us all.

The code of purity of arms (Hebrew: ???? ?????, Tohar HaNeshek) is one of the values stated in the Israel Defense Force’s official doctrine of ethics, The Spirit of the IDF.
Despite doubts when confronted by indiscriminate terrorism, purity of arms remains the guiding rule for the Israeli forces.

According to Norman Solomon, the concepts of Havlaga and purity of arms arise out of the ethical and moral values stemming from the tradition of Israel, extrapolation from the Jewish Halakha, and the desire for moral approval and hence political support from the world community.

These foundations have elicited a fair degree of consensus among Jews, both religious and secular, and are incorporated in the official Doctrine Statement of the Israel Defense Forces.

The extremities of acceptance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_of_arms

http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com/2009/07/purity-of-arms-impurity-of-claims.html

http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2009/01/have-your-cake.html

http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-front-lines.html
http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2007/04/purity-of-arms.html
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21478

Memoirs of Mr. Hempher

Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East or Confessions of a British Spy is a document purporting to be the account by an 18th-century British agent, Hempher, of his instrumental role in founding the conservative Islamic … Continue reading

Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East or Confessions of a British Spy is a document purporting to be the account by an 18th-century British agent, Hempher, of his instrumental role in founding the conservative Islamic reform movement of Wahhabism, as part of a conspiracy to corrupt Islam. It first appeared in 1888, in Turkish, in the five-volume Mir’at al-Haramayn of Ayyub Sabri Pasha (who is thought to be the actual author by at least one scholar).[1] It has been described as “apocryphal“,[2] a “forgery”, “utter nonsense”,[3] and “an Anglophobic variation on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.[2] It has been widely translated and disseminated, is available on the internet,[3][4][5][6] and still enjoys some currency among some individuals in theMiddle East and beyond. In 2002, an Iraqi military officer recapitulated the book in a “top secret document”.[1][7]

Instrumental rationality

Instrumental rationality is a mode of thought and action that identifies problems and works directly towards their solution.[1] Instrumental rationality is often studied as a social phenomenon by sociology, social philosophy and critical theory. Its proponents appear to work largely without reference to the school Instrumentalism, with which it is so closely associated linguistically. Perhaps […]

Instrumental rationality is a mode of thought and action that identifies problems and works directly towards their solution.[1]

Instrumental rationality is often studied as a social phenomenon by sociology, social philosophy and critical theory. Its proponents appear to work largely without reference to the school Instrumentalism, with which it is so closely associated linguistically. Perhaps its most famous critic is philosopher Martin Heidegger, who argued that the greatest danger facing modern humans was their own instrumental relationship to the world.


True Story of Thanksgiving

Published on Nov 25, 2015 Each November, Americans celebrate a mythical version of U.S. history. Thanksgiving Day’s portrayal of the experience of Native Americans under the boot of settler-colonialism is one of the Empire’s most cherished falsehoods. To hear about … Continue reading

Published on Nov 25, 2015
Each November, Americans celebrate a mythical version of U.S. history. Thanksgiving Day’s portrayal of the experience of Native Americans under the boot of settler-colonialism is one of the Empire’s most cherished falsehoods.

To hear about the true story of native peoples’ plight – from genocide to reeducation – Abby Martin interviews Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, renowned indigenous scholar and activist, about her most recent book “An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States.”


Rush Limbaugh’s “True Story of Thanksgiving”

 

Every Thanksgiving, like clockwork, an email makes its way around the inboxes of conservative Americans across the country — along with those of the unsuspecting family members and friends to whom they may forward it. The missive claims to tell “The True Story of Thanksgiving.” In reality, all it does is further propagate myths and lies about the already greatly misunderstood holiday.

Limbaugh tells the same story each November, lifted from chapter six, “Dead White Guys, or What the History Books Never Told You,” of his 1994 book, “See, I Told You So.” The accuracy in Limbaugh’s telling of the story basically ends with the title of the chapter — it is indeed a story about dead white guys, and it is a story that, truthfully, is not told in history books.

But the reason it is not told in history books is not, as Limbaugh implies, because the real story has been hidden, stifled, repressed; rather, the reason it is not told in history books is because it is not actual history. It is ahistorical right-wing propaganda; it is conservative mythology that was conjured to defend an idealized, fictitious representation of the United States of America and its origins.

The Sykes–Picot Agreement

The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East … Continue reading

The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empireduring World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]

The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4] An “international administration” was proposed forPalestine.[5] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following theRussian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, “the British were embarrassed, theArabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.”