Friday, 30 March 2007

REACTIONS TO THE KRAUTHAMMER COLUMN

Ken Berwitz

A short time ago I posted Charles Krauthammer's latest column, in which he points out that Iraq is far more germane to the war on terrorism than Afghanistan.  You might or might not agree with this, but it certainly is a tenable point of view which intelligent people can discuss and debate.

But then we have the lunatic left mega-moonbat brigade.  Those nice folks I periodically talk about in here, and whose delightful wit and wisdom I have shown you (usually with a warning to have an air sickness bag nearby). 

You may not be aware of this, but the newspaper Mr. Krauthammer writes for, the Washington Post, gives online readers a place to comment on their columnists.  And Washington Post commenters include a very large contingent of the lunatic left mega-moonbat brigade. 

Allow me to show you some excerpts of what they have to say about today's Krauthammer column. You, too, can experience the elevated prose, the delightful references to Mr. Krauthammer's physical disability and the sweet little nothings about Jews (yes, Jews.  The lunatic left mega-moonbat brigade hates Israel and any Jews who support it.  This leads to the fascinating question of why so many among them ARE Jewish.  Maybe I'll talk about that in another blog).

Please do not blame me for what you are about to see.  It is cut and pasted, verbatim, from the comments area.  And for your own safety, as well as the cleaning bill for your clothes, the chair you are sitting in and any nearby walls you are facing, don't forget that air sickness bag:

-

Funny stuff Krauthammer, but you would not recognize a war worthy situation if it tipped you out of your wheelchair.

So, what is Charlie Krautnuts telling us this time? - Is it that he thinks Nancy Pelosi is from Venus?

_ss lick_r

Charles knows as well as anybody that the most significant and the most effective thing the U.S. can do to defuse terrorism is to get Israel out of the occupied territories.

Charles you devil you. That Martian has got to be Jewish!! Otherwise, common sense looks at your assessment and say, what the f**k, you*re kidding me????? We*re responding to 9/11, not an invasion of Kuwait!!!! Charles, you Ass*ole you! Who are you looking to convince to your Jewish logic??? Face it, your buddy in the White House F**ked up, The only way to save Israel today is to anhilate the Arab states. A little word to you ass*ole, I think the Arabs are starting to see that.

No wonder MSM like wuzpost is dying a slow and painful death. Crap hacks like Kraut Novak continue to be employed by papers like yours, and your incompetent editors. May your paper die a slow death and eventually be sold to the Chinese.

Hey Krauthammer....The partys over, you punk. Keep counting the days until we haul your joo @ss to jail for manipulating public opinion to get thousands of Americans killed in a war for Israel.

This is yet another right wing hawk with his head so far up his backside,he cant see the forest thru the trees.

Is Mr. Krauthammer an idiot or is he just so totally taken in by the Israeli-neocon fantasies about Al Qaeda being strong enough to take control of a state.

The war is a lie. It is wrong, it is illegal, it is immoral, it is a botch foisted upon the American people and the Iraqi people by an administration filled with corrupt liars and born of the original sin of the stolen 2000 election. They never should have been in the White House which rightfully belonged to Al Gore, and being an illegitimate administration...

I think someone should attach a 50 caliber machine gun to Krauthammers wheelchair and drop him off in the middle of Bagdad. That are take him to the highest hill one can find and push his as@ down the hill.

Charles, hate to disallusion you but there is no -War on Terror-. It is a figment of Bush-s deranged and degenerative mind.

Krauthammer--- as insightful as he is attactive.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall! And Umpty Empty had a great fall. And all of them Brits, and all them Aussies: just could not help Umpty Empty put things together, and get back on the wall ever again. Bushman Bushman, have you any money. No Sir, No Sir, please dont be funny! I have burnt it all in Iraq, in shock and awe, and in a big fart! Bushman Bushman, have you any wool? Yes yes sir, yes yes sir, over my eyes and ears, just to keep me cool! Bushman Bushman, have you any bombs? Oh yes yes Sir, Oh yes yes Sir, many megatons!! For the axis of evil, and all the devils, and for those who are not with us, and must be on the highway, join the attorneys! But after Cockooter and Tcheney, and Krice and Debolton and Songalez, and AdMayar, so many Freunds, I have forgotten to spell. But I like De Elephant in a China Shop as they say in MaTexaz!  (NOTE:  This isn't specifically anti-Krauthammer, but it is so looney-tunes that I couldn't resist putting it in )

-

Trust me, folks, this is a tiny little sampling of the hatred and bile directed against Krauthammer.  If you want to see it all, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007032901987&start=141 .  You won't believe your eyes.


GUEST COMMENTARY: IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN?

Ken Berwitz

With characteristic brilliance, Charles Krauthammer puts the war in Iraq in perspective, while exposing the politically driven stupidity of Nancy Pelosi's position regarding where and how to fight terrorism. 

Usually I put the most salient points of an article or opinion column in bold print.  I won't do so here, because every word is important:

 

Which Is 'The Real War'?
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 30, 2007; A17

"Our bill calls for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan."

-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 8

The Senate and the House have both passed bills for ending the Iraq war, or at least liquidating the American involvement in it. The resolutions, approved by the barest majorities, were underpinned by one unmistakable theme: wrong war, wrong place, distracting us from the real war that is elsewhere.

Where? In Afghanistan. The emphasis on Afghanistan echoed across the Democratic side of the aisle in Congress from Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee to former admiral and Rep. Joe Sestak. It is a staple of the three leading Democratic candidates for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. It is the refrain of their last presidential candidate, John Kerry, and of their current party leader, Howard Dean, who complains that "we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. That's where the real war on terror is."

Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, the greater importance of Afghanistan is the least serious.

And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined, does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

Al-Qaeda has provided the answer many times. Osama bin Laden, the one whose presence in Afghanistan (or some cave on the border) presumably makes it the central front in the war on terror, has been explicit that "the most . . . serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq." Al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri, has declared that Iraq "is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

And it's not just what al-Qaeda says, it's what al-Qaeda does. Where are they funneling the worldwide recruits for jihad? Where do all the deranged suicidists who want to die for Allah gravitate? It's no longer Afghanistan but Iraq. That's because they recognize the greater prize.

The Democratic insistence on the primacy of Afghanistan makes no strategic sense. Instead, it reflects a sensibility. They would rather support the Afghan war because its origins are cleaner, the casus belli clearer, the moral texture of the enterprise more comfortable. Afghanistan is a war of righteous revenge and restitution, law enforcement on the grandest of scales. As senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden put it, "If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan."

If our resources are so stretched that we have to choose one front, the Martian would choose Iraq. But that is because, unlike a majority of Democratic senators, he did not vote four years earlier to authorize the war in Iraq, a vote for which many have a guilty conscience to be soothed retroactively by pulling out and fighting the "totally just war."

But you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terrorism. There's no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the "good war" in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging antiwar Democrats to increase funding that is needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.


GAZA PRIORITIES: KASSAMS vs. RAW SEWAGE AND THE WINNER IS......

Ken Berwitz

Some things need no explaining.

Here are two articles.  The first is from the Jerusalem Post.  The second is a series of pictures and captions. 

You can figure it out what their connection is for yourself.  Bold print is mine.

 

Israeli metal used for Kassam rockets

 

It took seven years, but the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) has finally put a stop to one of the more ironic aspects on Israel's war on terror: Kassam rockets made of Israeli metal.

A Palestinian from the Gaza Strip who worked as a metal merchant at the Karni crossing between Israel and the Strip was arrested by the Shin Bet last month for allegedly selling pipes he bought in Israel to terrorist groups that used them to manufacture Kassams, it was released for publication on Sunday.

On February 9, the Shin Bet arrested Amar Azk, 37. During his interrogation, he confessed selling the pipes to Hamas and other terrorist organizations that manufactured Kassam rockets, fired almost daily at Israel. The Shin Bet said Azk's activities began with the start of the second intifada in 2000 and were only brought to a halt by his arrest. The agency could not say how much metal Azk traded, except that it was "significant."

The pipes that were sold to Zak were intended for the construction of a sewage system in Gaza.

 

Whats Wrong With These Pictures? - From Gaza

From the wire services:

Palestinian women react after raw sewage erupted from holding pools and swept through a village in the northern Gaza Strip March 27, 2007. At least three people died and 15 were injured, Palestinian hospital officials said.

A Palestinian woman walks next to open sewage after raw sewage erupted from holding pools and swept through a village in the northern Gaza Strip March 27, 2007.

A Palestinian paddles his boat in sewer waters in the Bedouin village of Umm Al-Nasr after a water treatment reservoir burst, flooding the village in the northern Gaza Strip. At least four Palestinians drowned in the tsunami of raw sewage.

Palestinians walk next to open sewage after raw sewage erupted from holding pools and swept through a village in the northern Gaza Strip March 27, 2007.

General view of Palestinian houses flooded by raw sewage that erupted from holding pools and swept through a village in the northern Gaza Strip March 27, 2007.

Palestinians inspect their houses after raw sewage erupted from holding pools and swept through a village in the northern Gaza Strip March 27, 2007.

Photo

Palestinians gather after a cesspool embankment collapsed in the village of Umm Naser, in the northern Gaza Strip, Tuesday, March 27, 2007. An earth embankment around a cesspool suddenly collapsed Tuesday, spewing a river of sewage and mud that killed four people and forced residents to flee from this village in the northern Gaza Strip, officials said. A local official blamed shoddy infrastructure in Umm Naser, a town of 3,000, for the disaster.



ANOTHER TASTE OF THE FUTURE

Ken Berwitz

Radical Islam is at war against western civilization.  If we fight them, we may win.  If we don't fight them we will lose.  Should that happen, Western civilization will end and it will be replaced by.....what?

 I've posted other "taste of the future" blogs in the past.  But I found this at www.sweetness-light.com and thought it was particularly explanatory. 

What you are about to read is an answer to a question about religious freedom.  It is from "ask the Imam", a source of information for the muslim present....and, if we allow it to happen, the western future.  Read it and know what we are fighting against:

Ask the Imam Online Q & A with Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Ask-Imam.com > Islamic Politics > Question 2492 from Canada 

Was it wrong of the talibans to destroy the buddhas statues? Islam teaches tolerance and I dont see how this action on theirs can be justafied. What are you views on this?

Answer 2492

It is wrong to say that Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. To respect the beliefs of others means to respect kufr and shirk. This is totally unacceptable.

Yes, what we do respect is their right to practice their religion. In other words, despite the fact that we intensely abhor their beliefs, should they wish to practice on those beliefs, we will grant them the freedom to do so. This too is on condition that it does not conflict with our interests

Firstly, let us not be fooled by the term freedom of religion. There is no absolute freedom of religion. There is not a single state on earth that grants its citizens absolute freedom of religion. Even though such clauses appear in the constitutions of many States, it is a relative term. Should anyones personal religious convictions and practices conflict with the interests of the state, then such religious practices will be outlawed.

So just as every other state on earth gives preference to its own interests over the religious convictions of any citizen, similarly too does the Islamic state give preference to its own objectives.

An Islamic state is established with the sole purpose of establishing the Deen of Allah Taala on Allahs earth. The prime object is to entrench Islam in the land. Should any individuals personal interests be in conflict with this objective, preference will obviously be given to the Deen. The Islamic State is established for the Deen, and not for any particular individual or group. This will apply to even Muslim citizens. Should their personal ideals be in conflict with that of Islam, the ideals of Islam would reign superior.

While the non-Muslim citizens do have the right to practice their religion in Daarul Islam, this is subject to certain conditions. The need for these conditions arises from the fact that, should they be granted absolute freedom, some of their actions would come in conflict with the objectives of the State. Some of these conditions will be discussed below

Conditions:

They may practice their religion within the privacy of their homes

They may not build any new churches, synagogues etc.

Should any church, synagogue etc. be destroyed or require repair, they may repair or rebuild such buildings.

They may not celebrate any religious festivals in public

They may not display in public any item having particular religious purport, e.g. bible, Cross, statue, etc.

Such items should also be removed from the exterior of their places of worship i.e. No idol, Cross etc may be displayed on the outside of their places of worship.

They may not ring the church bell, nor read their religious books so loud that it is audible in public.

They may not invite towards their religion.

The reason for these conditions is that the purpose of Daarul Islam is to entrench Islam on the earth. Thus the salient features in religion must only be that of Islam. No features of other religions may be observable in public.

It is only when Muslims firmly enforced such laws that Islam reigned superior on earth. Thus the object for which Daarul Islam was established had been achieved

The cross is a religious symbol, and not an idol or image. Yet since it is a salient feature of the Christians, they were not allowed to publicly display it in Daarul Islam. All publicly displayed crosses were to be demolished, as has been established from the decree of Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah)

On the other hand the demolishing of idols displayed in Daarul Islam is a religious duty. Unlike swearing the mushrikeen, it has a purpose, which is to ensure that the atmosphere in Daarul Islam is only that of Islam. Thus it is a necessary duty. In carrying out our Islamic duties we fear not the rebuke of anyone.

Moulana Imraan Vawda
Assistant Mufti - Madrasah Inaamiyyah, Camperdown

Again:  If we do not fight terrorism, this is a taste of what our future will be.  Do you like it?  If so, then I suggest you demand that we not fight.  If not, then I suggest you demand that we do.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!