Those troublesome Jews

Charles Krauthammer

Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
This Story

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
ad_icon

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

Actually, Mr. Obama gets many hard questions asked all the time.

If at all, they emanate from FOX. And his flip, telepromptered responses and Chicago-style bashing of anyone who dares question him aren't what I would call insightful answers.

During any week, he has to figure out, how to solve many of the problems left over from the Republican's failed attempt at governing.

The Bush Excuse Machine expired on Jan 20, 2009. All Obama has done is take the worst of Bush and accelerated it, mainly on spending.

Maybe if Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney weren't dithering around in Iraq and Afghanistan, we chould have had those issues cleared up before last November.

Iraq is a success and only liberal ostriches deny it. Afghanistan? If Obama makes up his mind either way I'll be shocked.

Or stopped dithering around, and solved the economic problems we had and contiune to see. Maybe worked alittle on OUR COUNTRY, and not 'play' rulers of another land (like Iraq).

The Iraqis will soon be on their own. Meanwhile over here, the less government interferes the faster the economy will revive. Obama knows this even as his ideology opposes it.

You want to level serious questions towards Mr. Obama? Fine. Maybe sure you level the same amount of questions (and the intensity) towards the GOP. You can't do it, and everyone knows it.

I can criticize the GOP all day in defense of conservatism/libertarianism, but that's not what we want to hear at liberalsift.

So, what are the serious questions you have, that haven't been answered? You might try listening to the guy, instead of spewing irrelavent rumbish out of your mouth when he talks.

Yeah, that's the same way I feel when liberals bash Rush. They've never heard him except in soundbites from the MSM!

I know alot about Mr. Obama. Unlike you, I do R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H.

How does he plan to tax America into prosperity? If he can "cut fraud and waste" from Medicare to help pay for his socialized medicine scheme, why hasn't he done it already? Why are his college papers on lockdown? Could they be filled with anti-American rhetoric?

Allow me to simplify your Obama studies: he has no idea what he's doing.

Yes, Quantumushroom. His answers will be taken out of context and distorted. Like....what Mr. Beck, Mr. Hannity, Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Limbaugh, all the 'reporters' and 'journalists' at Fox 'News' does for anything from Democrats (like, Mr. Obama?). Yes, in this interview, he is one person, with one opinion. He's not elected to office, nor does have to be at all accountable to ANYONE. Huge amount of power, plus zero accountability, spells 'abuse of power'.

Actually, Mr. Obama gets many hard questions asked all the time. During any week, he has to figure out, how to solve many of the problems left over from the Republican's failed attempt at governing. Maybe if Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney weren't dithering around in Iraq and Afghanistan, we chould have had those issues cleared up before last November. Or stopped dithering around, and solved the economic problems we had and contiune to see. Maybe worked alittle on OUR COUNTRY, and not 'play' rulers of another land (like Iraq). You want to level serious questions towards Mr. Obama? Fine. Maybe sure you level the same amount of questions (and the intensity) towards the GOP. You can't do it, and everyone knows it.

So, what are the serious questions you have, that haven't been answered? You might try listening to the guy, instead of spewing irrelavent rumbish out of your mouth when he talks. I know alot about Mr. Obama. Unlike you, I do R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H. I look up on the web, in to the library, ask people around me, and even ask my cat (though, he seems to just lick his fur, want food, and a place to sleep...).

Here's a few places to start:

A) What 99% of people us, to start looking up information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_Obama

B) What the remaining 1% use to start looking up information: http://conservapedia.com/Barrack_Obama

Its rather amusing to read conservapedia from time to time. Even with Mr. Obama's information. Since, much of it is filled with half truths and out right lies of the facts.

From Rush (your favorite!).

"For over a year, there have been warnings that our military face deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan. Candidate Obama, remember, claimed that if elected, he would withdraw from Iraq, the so-called war of choice, and focus on Afghanistan -- which he said was the "war of necessity."

"Well, despite all the promises and all the warnings (including dire pleas for additional troops from Obama's handpicked general on the ground), the military still awaits a decision from their Commander-in-Chief. This week, while they wait, multiple bomb attacks killed more American soldiers, making October the deadliest combat month since the war began after 9/11.

"As terrorists become emboldened, the death toll in Pakistan and Iraq is also rising. There was even a deadly terror strike against Iran. The entire region seems to be imploding.

"Democrats here upbraided Dick Cheney after he called out Obama for "dithering" in Afghanistan, yet the State-Controlled Media will not ask Obama why his decision is taking so long, or if domestic politics are a factor. Nor do they question the time he spends fundraising, campaigning, golfing (poorly, I might add), playing basketball, attending White House concerts -- while the troops wait... and die.

"If you don't like the word "dithering," then come up with another word. But it is clear: neither national security, nor the war in Afghanistan, is top priority for this "young administration", but it is a top priority for our brave fighting troops -- and for the parents of those fallen, who are still waiting, in vain, for presidential leadership."


QM > White House full of reds.

>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX > White House full of reds.


Hey dipshit, watch the video before commenting next time.

This has NOTHING to do with FOX. Retard.

To be honest he's right on dithering, but that's not entirely Obama's fault. Part of the problem has been McChrystal leaked report on Afghanistan which confronted him with being forced to make an immediate decision or appearing to waver. The fraudulent elections have also made committing more troops before the debacle is resolved unfeasible and would have appeared as if he was propping up a pro-US autocratic regime. Now that Karzai has agreed to a second round recount, and there exists the potential for a power sharing agreement eventuating with Abdullah, the symbolic gesture of committing more troops becomes more genuine, as well as politically plausible at home.

He's blatantly wrong on the missile shield though. The chance of Russia, particularly given how much of a hit its economy took from the global economic downturn, of making any big strides into Eastern Europe are slim. After all, it's actions into Georgia while disproportionate were arguably provoked. It's clear the main purpose of them from the start was to protect against the threat of a nuclear Iran. But then, the process of setting up this missile shield angered Russia, which then caused it become closer both economically in their willingness to help build nuclear reactors and in providing valuable VETO votes against further sanctions through the UN, which formed a catch 22. Especially considering the unproven nature of the missile shields, and the value of Russia as an ally versus slightly thornier relationships between the US and Eastern Europe, it seems that dismantling them was easily the best option considering the downsides of both choices.

>> ^buzz:
I actually didn't really get the point of the vid... One one hand he's saying he disagrees with Bush and on the other, he's saying it's not right for Obama to use the term Bush/McCain in describing his policies (or 3rd Bush term). Why are these arguments contrary (which I assume was the point the vid was trying to make )?
Have I missed something?


Yes, you have missed something. He says that his opponents are saying that voting for him is just the same as voting for Bush because they are so alike. In the speech he's making in front of the green screen he's trying to say that he's different to Bush, that you're voting for another man entirely, not the same at all.

And yet, from a prior interview, as showed in the green screen insert, we see that he has been, and has stated that he has been, pretty much bang on exactly the same as Bush in all policies that make sense.

He is Bush in another guise, and if anyone votes the dithering old fool in, the ol' US of A is doomed.

"Internet Explorer supports PNG images but is unable to correctly display images with gamma correction or color correction. Versions of Internet Explorer prior to version 7 are unable to correctly display images with alpha channel (for transparency) without additional coding [24]" From Here.

Internet Explorer for Mac supports PNG though. IE really doesn't support much of anything. If you take a look at this statistics link, from w3schools.com, you'll see that Firefox is becoming QUITE popular though, with it's users quickly rising. Link.

I don't think GIF would be a viable option because the filesizes are too large and dithering looks worse then JPEG artifacts. You could limit the filesize for GIFs? What do you think dag?

Another idea. Allow hotlinking of images for avatars from approved sites. Postimage might suffice. But then thumbnails would be a problem, no? Let me know if it's a viable option.

Bring these ideas up at your next board meeting dag! lol

This makes me sad, I really like PNG. Damn Microsoft. Can't they get anything right?

I do have good news though. If you go here you can sign a petition for IE to support PNG. Not excellent news as I don't think Microsoft will give a Flying V.

*As a side note, IE doesn't even fully support JPEG either, "Internet Explorer does not support progressive display of progressive JPEG." From Here.)
I swear I have OCD. I've edited this post atleast a dozen times.

I've downloaded it from http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=50526 .

There's a more technical explanation by the coder : "This ARE real 3d spheres. Each one is an individual sphere, no grouping or anything. It's 3d, almost any standard technique can be used here - as occlusion queries, shadow mapping or ssao.

I managed to make the ssao work with shaders 2.0 cards, I'm using 14 taps (without dithering or bluring, but eh, this is 4k!)

The spheres are raytraced, they are pure 3d. The thing is to bound the real geometry by a simpler geometry (say,a cube) and do the raytracing on the shader."

All of this is real-time rendered and fit in a 4kb windows executable.

As a coder myself, I'm really amazed and now, I return to my books ...

Our biggest enemy in the quest for decency isn't the people Bill may or may not be parodying, but the weak-minded, vacillating pro-life apologists who after so much dithering and soul-searching have dipped the scarcest tip of a pinkie into the waters of not-being-such-a-fucking-moron. All the while clinging to their totem-soundbite of "a woman's right to choose" they mewl and whine about the tragedy, necessary evils, so called "grey areas".

Right and wrong is not a matter of degrees. There are no grey areas, in anything, but especially for such a simple question as abortion. All human beings support either parent's right to demand abortion, for any purpose, including recreational, up to birth and beyond.

As for the monsters opposing your right to do as you please with your own property; there's only one appropriate use of a pro-lifer's time, and it isn't promoting contraception awareness. It is being nailed to a pole and set on fire. They. Are. Filth. Unutterable, incomprehensible abomination.

you also have to take into account whether that's a DVI-LCD or a VGA-LCD... DVI is going to be quicker, because you don't have to convert it to an analog signal and back again, like you do with VGA.

i actually prefer the CRT image (on a flatscreen CRT design), because the grays and blacks are better defined. most LCD's are not true 32/24-bit color, due to the advantages of pixel dithering in LCD's.
but because i go to a lot of LAN parties, the LCD is obviously more advantageous...

...sorry been dithering over which picture to use and the name. loads of feed back from people over the name and the tone. thanks

will start it up very soon...also been distracted by djsunkids new collective which i promised some posts to flesh it out.