Neo-Conservative Ghoul Bret Stephens understands terrorist carnage like you never will! The argument: the visceral informs the intellectual. A comment by Karl Kraus’ Ghost

To witness a suicide bombing up close is to understand, at its etymological root, the meaning of the word “carnage.”

A bomb packed with nails, ball bearings and metal scraps — the sort that Salman Abedi detonated in Manchester on Monday night — doesn’t just kill. It shreds.

Human beings are turned, instantly, into scraps of bone, organ and flesh. The smell of explosives mingles horribly with that of charred skin, burned metal, melted plastic and enormous quantities of blood. Cafes, buses, markets and concert halls become abattoirs, public and obscene.

The bomber dies, too. The act turns the perpetrator into somebody’s martyr while denying his victims the possibility of justice. Mockery from beyond the grave thus compounds the nihilism of the act: “I got you; you can never get me.”

Thirteen years ago, on Azza Street in Jerusalem, I saw a man’s body on a blown-up bus swaying back and forth, as if reciting a final prayer. He was one of 11 victims that day, in a bombing that took place a block from where I lived. It’s a sight that’s never left me.

What Mr.  Stephen leaves out of his political testament, in the guise of an anguished  cri de cœur against the carnage of Terrorism, is the record of the Terror practiced by Zionists. Just three of the myriad examples of how Gaza was turned into Zionism’s Warsaw Ghetto on the Installment Plan:

Operation Operation Cast Lead

Operation Pillar of Defense

Operation Protective Edge

Not to forget that Mr. Stephens assumed the editorship of The Jerusalem Post, the official organ of Israeli State Propaganda at age 28, through ‘serendipity’ ! Zionism re-enacts the forms of their European Oppression, on their Semitic brother and sisters!

Karl Kraus’ Ghost



About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.