Simon Jenkins Insults Kenya Mall Attack Victims

The internet can amplify anguish over an atrocity, media of the past would only show tasteful mourning and tribute. Now countless viewpoints have voices thanks to the internet and immediately after an atrocity people are exposed to conspiracy theories, justifications or general imbecility. Depending on the atrocity we will either inevitably encounter conspiracy theories that it was all staged so as to take away gun stockpiles of mentally stunted far-rightists (the real victim doncha know). If an atrocity is carried out by Islamists some will present it as justifiable blowback for such mortal sins as fighting the taliban or  people will respond by writing material that reaches a subatomic level of stupidity. Simon Jenkins' article on the attack falls belongs to the third category.

Jenkins is curious to know why "terrorists commit outrages like that in a Nairobi shopping mall." Jihadis have been making their motives known for years but Jenkins believes that "the answer is the west always over-reacts to big, sensational gestures of extreme violence. Had the Somalian al-Shabaab sect merely shot up a street in Mogadishu, would Cameron have rushed to Cobra? As it is, Cameron has helped send them to the top of the terrorist charts." Simon apparently believes that Cameron not al-Shabaab is at fault for condemning the massacre!

Simon says that "there is nothing anyone can do to prevent suicide bombers hitting civilian populations" which would news to the Quetta Hazaras who prevented a suicide bombing. It would also produce fits of laughter among intelligence agencies who have penetrated terrorist organizations and prevented atrocities. He believes that it could "be sensible to discourage like-minded crowds from gathering in one place, be they co-religionists or party faithful or merely the wealthy." Simon further shames himself by placing pressure on groups targeted by terrorism; its little different from saying that rape cannot be stopped so really we should just keep our females at home. By that reasoning does that Jenkins blame the victims for being there in the first place?

It seems that "the modern urban obsession with celebrity buildings and high-profile events offers too many publicity-rich targets" said Jedediah to Ezekiel after hitching up the buggy. Jenkins argues that "defending them is near impossible. Better at least not to create them." There is almost between that reasoning and arguing that Synagogues shouldn't be built to prevent them from being bombed. If Israel had done the same to Palestinians or if Europeans had killed the same number of Kenyans does anyone think that the guardian would respond the same? By trying to blame anyone but the actual killers Simon justifies and defends the terrorists.

Simon continues with a self evidently false comment "there is no defence against the terror weapons of guns and grenades. Nor in any society, free or repressive, is there defence against fanaticism unto death in pursuit of a cause, however madcap and hopeless." He doesn't offer any evidence at all, I'm far from a Hitchens fan but he was fully correct when he said "that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

He contradicts by arguing that "the best defence is a sense of proportion" after saying there is no defense! Simon ends by justifying Islamist "by deploying violence against a succession of Muslim states, the world's leading powers have made their business its business and invited retaliation" which is unsupported by the record of jihadi attacks, I'm curious who invited GIA terrorism in Algeria. The blowback routine is the guardian defacto response to jihadi attacks in this case even in regards to an attack on a civilian target with no connection to western foreign policy. Its easy to detect that guardian extremists aren't really trying these days; they have scripts and dogma where there was once critical thought and conscience or at least the possibility of those traits.

John Pilger's Continuing Mania

I have several pyramids for sale to anyone who believes that its a coincidence that the guardian chose the week that makes anniversary of 911 to publish an article libeling the USA as "humanity's most dangerous enemy." Much like claims of ESP the quote is evidence free claim produced for those who want to believe it. The quote is self evidently false to anyone with a basic education who lives in this world of expanding PRC and DPRK slave systems just as anyone vaguely aware of gravity can dismiss allegations of telekinesis. Like a teenager attempting to bend spoons with his mind, Pilger is a captive of delusion of the belief that he's waging an epic struggle when he's actually only shaming himself.

Pilger opens by promoting Hiroshima victimhood, there's nothing with questioning the ethics of allied tactics but it must be done in context of Axis atrocity. To rip Dresden or Hiroshima out of context for moralizing guilt trips makes the Axis powers into victims, the chief goal of neo-fascist revisionism. Out of all the civilian casualties in the second world war the Axis powers received the lowest, 12 percent, out of that Japan received the lowest. By Pilger's reasoning if Japan was a victim then so was the third reich as far more civilians in Germany than in Nipon.

The article comes off as an unintentional caricature of cliches spouted by the pro-Assad 'antiwar' movement with comparisons of Syria to Iraq. Silly man, doesn't he know its just like the red river war? Just look at the parallels! Don't deny them!

Apparently "John Kerry's farce and Barack Obama's pirouettes are temporary" a preposterous charge  as anyone vaguely with his MENA policy knows no one wants to stay out than Barry Obama. It turns out my ESP allegory was accurate since Pilger predicts that "Russia's peace deal over chemical weapons will, in time, be treated with the contempt that all militarists reserve for diplomacy." Yes he believes that Putin in a peacemaker and Obama is an evil militarist! Peace in this context means Syrians fully under the thumb of Baathist rule.

According to Pilger Obama is allied with "Al-Qaeda" in Syria, it doesn't matter that Al-Qaeda linked jihadis are now executing rebels backed by Obama. It doesn't matter that if it is a "myth" that the Syrian opposition are Al-Qaeda Assad apologists, far-rightists and others will continue to howl that any Syrian who doesn't believe that there is no God but Bashar is Al-Qaeda. The myth justifies Baathist violence, dehumanizes its victims and as an argument becomes a polemical blunt object.

Pilger has put on many breathtaking performances in the theater of absurdity but his sudden outrage about Syrian Islamists is a new masterpiece since he has a long record of justifying Islamist atrocities. He has voiced support for 911 conspiracism, described Hezbollah as "humanity as its noblest" and praised the Taliban in an article promoting the Afghan pipeline conspiracy theory.

He describes the Egyptian military junta as Obama's allies, Sisi has refused every request made by the president who backed Morsi to his end. Pilger believes that Obama "intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran" John's source for his claim is the conspiracist hate site 'exclusive reports' typical articles include "Ancient Roots of Bilderberg Reveal Prusso-Teutonic Agenda for World Domination."Though its not surprising that he uses sources that share his level of credibility.

Pilger alleges that a shadowy conspiracy (just be honest and say Jews John you know you want to) is "suppressing the truth" and that "whether...Bashar al-Assad or the "rebels" used gas in the suburbs of Damascus." John minimizes the Baathist atrocity as much as possible and hinting that he believes a conspiracy was behind it his source promotes 'false flag' conspiracy theories about it. Pilger's support is a matter of public record since he previously denied that Baathists committed the Houla massacre claiming that the slaughter was committed by "'rebels' backed by Obama and Cameron."

Predictably John moves on to whataboutery arguing "the US, not Syria, that is the world's most prolific user of" chemical weapons. He cites use of defoliants, depleted uranium and white phosphrous, DU and WP are not banned by any treaty and are legal to use in war under international law. According to "Historical Dictionary of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare" defoliants "fall outside the coverage afforded by the chemical weapons convention." Even if Pilger was correct it would have no ethical relevance, to argue that the actions of one state absolves another is illogical apologia which further condemns him as a supporter of Bashar al-Assad. The very same reasoning would absolve the USA of any real or imagined wrongdoing: any Pilger critique of old glory can be made moot by his own tactics if they are accepted.

John believes that opposition to the Syrian regime proves people are "brainwashed" this from the man who thinks that sites promoting talking of ancient Teuton plots of world domination are news! The "brainwash" non-argument places him firmly in the conspiracist camp who defend their claims by proclaiming themselves to possess absolute truth and intellectual superiority. Pilger's source for his example of projection is anti-Semite and 911 truther Richard Falk, maybe those 'secret' imbeciles are on to something abut something about like attracting like.

Pilger proclaims that a "a military coup has taken place in Washington" because Barry "accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor." The naked absurdity aside its a claim that disproves itself since Pilger thinks a lack of change proves that a huge change like a coup has taken place. Though it does remind me of some damn good fiction.

John goes full tea bagger by writing that "the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state" he might owe Dinesh D'Souza royalties since he just reiterated the plot of '2016 Obama's America.' Its another self evidently false claim, anti-Obama protesters freely call for Obama's murder, try to foment revolution and other acts that would receive in some of the most liberal countries. In real police states people are tortured and murdered for the most restrained protests which is what happens in Pilger's beloved Baathist Syria.

As his article which seems to be a transcript of primal scream therapy sessions ends John makes a hideously exploitive claim "more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year 6,500 veterans took their own lives." If the US of A is the most evil state ever (like if  no heart from the care bears was a country) why care about their soldiers? In actuality "nearly 85 percent of military members who took their lives had no direct combat history, meaning they may have been deployed but not seen action."

He cites a history "historian Norman Pollack" who calls this "liberal fascism."" Pollack published a few books decades ago, the 'liberal fascism' hyperbole is from a counterpunch article, an outlet that publishes neo-nazis and articles alleging that the blood libel is historical fact. Pollack predictably compares Obama to Hitler thus completing the arch between the far-left and Glenn Beck.

Norman's condemnation of Obama for "militarisation" and "assassination" makes little sense as thats nothing compared to FDR's carpet bombing of entire cities. Pilger seems to think that Barry is just like you know who because of drones, a method of war legal under international law which only forbids intentionally targeting civilians .  by that reasoning was any allied leader not comparable to mister Schicklgruber?

He libels Obama as the "the first black leader of the land of slavery" which reveals his racism as John loves to weaponize slavery to attack Barrack having previously called him an "uncle Tom." Its not merely racist its also imbecilic since Obama has no ties to southern antebellum on his Kenyan side. He quotes "judges at Nuremberg" who declared that "individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity." That probably means that Pilger has spent the week ripping off mattress tags and loitering convinced that he was brining Obama's nazi-zionist-prusso-teutonic cabal to its knees.

Extremism comparable to fascism will almost inevitably be found in the decayed minds of those who make hyperbolic third reich and/or fascist comparisons. Just as Pollack writes for an outlet with content that mirrors Der Sturmer, Pilger defends a stated modeled on European fascism with advice from Alois Brunner. John Pilger praises terrorist organizations like Hezbollah who have sworn to exterminate Jews and his idea of a good Jew is neo-nazi Gilad Atzmon. I'm sure Pilger would compare himself to Mandela or Gandhi depending on his mood and vague knowledge of who those people were but Mel Gibson is the most accurate comparison.

The Washington Post Publishes Rape Apologia

Susan Brownmiller called Ayn Rand a "traitor to her sex" for romanticizing rape in her novels. Brownmiller's words accurately describe Betsy Karasik who believes that "sex between (underage) students and teachers should not be a crime." Karasik is "troubled" not because a rapist received only 30 days for raping a girl who later killed herself but because she doesn't "believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape."  She is under the delusion "that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized."

She thinks "that teachers who engage in sex with students, no matter how consensual, should be removed from their jobs and barred from teaching unless they prove that they have completed rehabilitation." At most she wants people who rape children to undergo "rehabilitation" as Andrew Vachss explained "rhabilitation is a joke. I've spoken to many predators over the years. They always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go. Our attitude is a deliberate interference with Darwinism—an endangerment of our species."

Betsy Boop believes that people "responds to these situations" with "hysteria" she is more disturbed about the response to rape than rape itself.  She believes that 'hysteria' "does less to protect children than to assuage society’s need to feel that we are protecting them." Karasik does not provide any evidence to support her argument and her only alternative is to punish sexual predators as less as possible.

She sinks even lower by regurgitating the myth of the teenage temptress: "I’ve been a 14-year-old girl, and so have all of my female friends. When it comes to having sex on the brain, teenage boys got nothin’ on us." Anecdotes are not evidence, Betsy tries to make it all about her which strongly suggests narcissism and a severe lack of empathy.  Her non-argument also gives the impression that the rape victim was a lusty PYT who actually wanted it since Karasik tries to argue that the victim's suicide was unconnected to her rape.

Karasik "knew students who had sexual relations with teachers. To the best of my knowledge, these situations were all consensual in every honest meaning of the word." If Betsy were something other than a deluded self centered twit she would realize that her personal experiences have no relevance to a tragic injustice and suicide. Similarly if she possessed any empathy she would realize how abhorrent it is to argue that teachers preying on students is a-okay because she says without any evidence. She further insults the victim and tries to argue that her suicide had nothing to do with her rape by spewing "some feelings probably got bruised, no one I knew was horribly damaged and certainly no one died." Betsy elevates her own fanciful opinions over the voices of rape victims she really puts the sick in Karasick.

Betsy continues on whether her narcissitic travels through memory lane by whining about how she was "was fired from a waitressing job in Boston in 1979, during my first year of law school, after I refused to sit in the manager’s lap like the other girls. I would have much rather seen that sleazebag dragged through the legal system than certain teachers I considered friends despite their sexual relations with students that today would land them in jail." Karasik feels the urge to make it all about her by casting a rape and suicide as trivial and trying to make herself the real victim. There's something especially childishly narcissistic about how she wants the legal system to operate in harmony with own personal warped opinions Betsy is a queen of harts without a wonderland.

Apparently "there is a vast and extremely nuanced continuum of sexual interactions involving teachers and students, ranging from flirtation to mutual lust to harassment to predatory behavior." According to Bets we shouldn't 'paint' " all of these behaviors with the same brush sends a damaging message to students and sets the stage for hypocrisy and distortion of the truth." Karasik again does not provide any evidence for her argument which makes it invalid. Is she suggesting that the case was simply a matter of "hypocrisy and distortion?" If so that makes her a rape apologists bordering on rape denier.

According to Betsy "pretending that this kind of thing won’t happen if we simply punish it severely enough is delusional" laws exist to remedy injustice no one believes that laws will prevent crime from ever happening. I thought at least a third grade comprehension of civics was required to write for the washington post. She endorses Louis CK's joke that pedophiles wouldn't kill their victims if they weren't punished so badly, the closes she ever comes to offering evidence.

She asks "if religious leaders and heads of state can’t keep their pants on, with all they have to lose, why does society expect that members of other professions can be coerced into meeting this standard?" The fool conflates sex between adults and rapes of children! The comparison further approaches rape denialism.

Karasik thinks that a "more realistic approach would be to treat violations in a way that removes and rehabilitates the offender without traumatizing the victim."  How wouldn't punishing rape slighlty not traumatize the victim? Betsy is really narcissitic to think that she knows what is right for rape victims! If rape was punished leniently it would sky rocket, all of a sudden every loser could live out his fantasies and know that he only has to fear a rehab day spa if he's caught. Karasik's 'solution' would to make a paradise for rapists and a hell for their victims where their rapist's feelings are valued more than their own.

Betsy warns that "he issue of underage sex, and certainly of sex between students and teachers, may be one in which the law of unintended consequences is causing so much damage that society needs to reassess." Another fancifully deluded claim without evidence. Underage 'sex' (rape) between children and teachers has been illegal for centuries, what harm has it inflicted? The Washington Post should apologize for publishing by a depraved narcissistic dullard that insults the suffering of rape victims while calling to create a Gorean utopia for rapists that would leave victims all but defenseless.