Wednesday, 08 February 2012


Ken Berwitz

Mass Murder.  it is being perpetrated by Syrian "head of state" bashar al assad against his own people - with the apparent blessing of Russia and China.  And the world watches, doing nothing.

Here is the first part of an article on this inhuman slaughter, from Luke Harding, Mona Mahmood and Matthew Weaver's article at London's Daily Guardian:

Syrian siege of Homs is genocidal, say trapped residents


Residents inside the besieged city of Homs claim they are under "genocidal attack" from a Syrian regime apparently deaf to international opinion and determined to "bomb, starve and shoot" them into submission.


On Tuesday night the city was under massive continuous bombardment, witnesses told the Guardian, with rockets raining down from the sky every few minutes, and helicopters and fighter planes circling overhead. They said Syrian army tanks had encircled opposition-held suburbs, in preparation for what they feared was a final, deadly ground assault.


"The regime didn't expect us to continue our struggle against them," activist Karam Abu Rabea said via Skype. "They didn't think we would persist. So now it is using its last card. It is the genocide card."


Rabea described the humanitarian situation as appalling. He said the regime was deliberately attempting to starve families trapped in rebel-controlled districts. Army snipers had been positioned on the main roads, he added, and were able to mow down anyone who moved on smaller, intersecting side roads. No one could escape, he said. Two journalists Salah Murjan and Khalid Abu Salah, documenting the horrors of Homs were shot by snipers.


Rabea said: "There is no food allowed to get inside neighbourhoods opposing the regime. Especially bread. We don't have any bread. They are targeting the vital installations of the city: bakeries, the hospital, mosques. Some of the bakeries were shut by force. The regime cut off internet and phones on Monday. I have a satellite set, which is why I can speak to you. The Assad regime is trying to destroy Homs completely."


His comments came as Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, held talks in Damascus on Tuesday with Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, after Russia and China vetoed a UN security council resolution on Saturday that was designed to stop the bloodshed. The vetoes prompted global condemnation, with the US closing its embassy on Damascus on Monday, and Britain recalling its ambassador for consultations. On Tuesday the diplomatic exodus from Damascus continued, with France and Italy withdrawing their ambassadors. Six Gulf states Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also pulled their envoys out and expelled Syrian ambassadors from their own countries.


Speaking on Tuesday, Lavrov said Assad had assured him he was "completely committed to the task of stopping violence regardless of where it may come from".


But the claim bore little resemblance to the bloody reality inside Homs. 

Because Russia and China apparently are comfy-cozy with the slaughter of innocent people, the UN has no official capability to do a thing about this - not that the UN could do a thing about it even if it passed a resolution. 

Meanwhile the subhuman scumbag bashar al-assad, just like his subhuman scumbag of a father hafez al-assad, continues to kill the residents of Homs.  Like shooting fish in a barrel.

And, in case bashar slows down, the equally subhuman scumbags running Iran - the ones President Obama gave a free pass to when the country rose up in 2009 - are sending in 15,000 troops to help him with the killing.

Speaking of countries that President Obama doesn't seem to care much about, if I were Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu I would be more than a little worried about 15,000 Iranian troops being stationed in the next country over. 

What if their deployment has nothing to do with al-assad's war on his own people?  What if ahmadinejad intends to station them there for Israel-related purposes, as he continues to finalize development of his nuclear weaponry?   What if they fire artillery across the Israeli border?

At what point do the United States and the rest of the world, start considering the possibility that they may have to get off their useless asses and DO something - before there is a nuclear conflagration in the middle east that winds up engulfing the entire world?


Ken Berwitz

This one is for anybody who thinks the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is any less hopeless than much of our domestic media.

Excerpted from Neil Midgely and James Kirkup's article for the Daily Telegraph:

BBC tells its staff: dont call Qatada extremist

In order to avoid making a value judgment, the corporations managers have ruled that he can only be described as radical.

Journalists were also cautioned against using images suggesting the preacher is overweight.

A British court has called Qatada a truly dangerous individual and even his defence team has suggested he poses a grave risk to national security.

Despite that background, BBC journalists were told they should not describe Qatada as an extremist. The guidance was issued at the BBC newsrooms 9.00am editorial meeting yesterday, chaired by a senior manager, Andrew Roy.

According to notes of the meeting, seen by The Daily Telegraph, journalists were told: Do not call him an extremist we must call him a radical. Extremist implies a value judgment.

The guidance was criticised by experts and MPs. Maajid Nawaz of Quilliam, a counter-extremist think tank, accused the BBC of liberal paralysis over Islamic extremism, saying journalists must be honest about Qatadas record. He said: A radical is someone who is different from the norm. An extremist is someone who promotes extreme views and actions, like killing innocents.

James Clappison, a Conservative member of the Commons home affairs select committee, said the guidance was unjustifiable. He said: Given the evidence about this man, it makes you wonder what you have to do for the BBC to call you an extremist.

Incredible?  No, just the state of what passes for journalism these days.

Put another way:  the sorry bunch of Accomplice Media I talk about so frequently in this blog are not the only ones.  They can be found on both sides of the Atlantic.

Too bad for them, and too bad for us.

Giustino i just sngied up for both but have been a subscriber on youtube for you also already:) ive never won anything in my life except for my husband of a year now and his 2 darling boys who are now my step sons:) I consider that a win in my book:) (02/20/12)


Ken Berwitz

CNN's resident buffoon, Roland Martin, has been suspended.  The reason?  The apparently homophobic comments that he tweeted during the super bowl (they were not made on CNN).

Excerpted from Nina Mandell's article in the New York Daily News:

A CNN anchor was benched after sending homophobic tweets during the Super Bowl.

Roland Martin shocked viewers when he tweeted that any male fans of David Beckhams underwear commercial for H&M were not real bruhs.

If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckhams H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl he added.

He also made fun of a New England Patriots player earlier in the day who arrived wearing a pink jump suit.

He needs a visit from #teamwhipdata- he quipped.

At first, he tried to justify his tweets saying that he was just making fun of soccer. But many people werent buying it.

In addition to taking flak from many of his Twitter followers, GLAAD called for Martin to be fired immediately.

Based on this history, this doesnt seem like a playful jab at what Martin considers an inferior sport. It seems like a jab at what Martin considers an inferior community of people. Last year, Martin defended Tracy Morgan when Morgan said that if his son were gay he would "take out a knife and stab him."

This is what I blogged about Martin's sorry comments on Monday:

Either he is a homophobe...or he has his didies in an uproar over not liking the game of soccer. 

Can someone tell me which of these is the good choice?  The mature one?  Go ahead and try.  I dare you.  In my opinion, either one makes him come out looking stupid.

This is the same Roland Martin, let's remember, who high-fived Soledad O'Brien last week for the "accomplishment" of conducting a testy interview with Mitt Romney.  Evidently that is what passes for professional journalism over at CNN these days. 

Point of order:  if Roland Martin had said what GLAAD claimed he did about Tracy Morgan's disgustingly offensive "comedy", he should have, and almost certainly would have, been suspended right then - permanently.  But, in actuality, Martin's "defense" was not specific to gay-bashing, it was generally of comedians who do edgy material.  His exact words - which, ironically, anticipated that some people would take them as homophobic, were:

"If we are to demand an apology for every time a comedian is sexist against men or women, racist or homophobic, we might as well launch a website called  Say I'm wrong. Fine. Say I'm insensitive to gays and lesbians. Fine."

In any event, I would lie to say I am troubled by Roland Martin's suspension.  Nor would I be troubled if it is an extended one.

Roland Martin does CNN no good.  The network is better off without him....and should have realized as much a long time ago.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, 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!!