New York Times covering for muslim jihadists

December 4, 2008by Kal El on · Comments

No shock there, a liberal mainstream media source covering for jihad.

Were There Muslims in Mumbai?

Come on along and listen to the Lullaby of Mumbai, the hip hooray and politically correct coverage, and never say the “I” word. That doesn’t rhyme, does it?

In its coverage of a series of coordinated attacks in Mumbai last week that left 172 dead, the New York Times – America’s newspaper that sounds like a broken record – scrupulously avoided any suggestion of possible sectarian motivation for the atrocities. The perpetrators were variously referred to as “terrorists,” “gunmen,” “militants” and “assailants.”

The only time “Islam,” “Muslims” or similar expressions were used was in reporting on statements of the terrorists themselves – as when they railed against the alleged mistreatment of Muslims in Kashmir and India or demanded that “mujahedeen” prisoners be released. Sky News reported that the terrorists called on the Indian government “to return stolen Muslim lands” – which, in the wide world of Islam, is all of India.

It’s not just the New York Times that engages in extreme reality-avoidance when it comes to the nastier aspects of the Prophet’s creed.

At its annual convention in October 2001, the Society of Professional Journalists issued “Diversity Guidelines,” that instructed reporters and editors to, “Avoid using word combinations such as ‘Islamic terrorist’ or ‘Muslim extremist’ that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity.”

Let’s see: In the past 30 years, the overwhelming majority of acts of terrorism were committed by Muslims. Most terrorist groups have names like jihad-this and Islamic-that. Terrorists regularly quote the Koran’s kill-the-infidels verses. (“O True Believers, when you encounter the unbeliever, strike off their heads!”) Al-Qaeda and company tell us that their goal is to advance the global jihad . Those inciting inter-religious violence have titles like sheikh, imam and mullah. But linking Islam to terrorism is “misleading”?

Since 1993, there have been at least 17 terror-bombings in India – 12 of them since 2005. In each, the death toll has ranged from a dozen to more than 200. That the victims were (almost exclusively) Hindus, and the perpetrators (when identified) Muslims, is happenstance, according to the mainstream media.

Even though muslims routinely kidnap and execute journalists (Daniel Pearl ring a bell?) while waging jihad, the mainstream media still insists on burrowing their heads in their asses and covering for those very people killing anyone they can get their paws on in their global jihad.

Read the rest in Front Page Magazine.

  • The NY Slimes and all of their ilk should apply dhimmi ointment to their (obvious) rug burned knees.

    “Diversity Guidelines" ??? The Society of Professional Journalists --see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil policy, does not erase centuries of EVIL. in the name of Islam.
  • jennyjen
    The editors of the Times have their heads so far up their rear-ends they can smell their own breath! "Were there Muslims in Mumbia?" of all the stupid asinine crap to print. As an infidel and a conservative I am offended and I say shenanigans sir! Print the real news, not the appeasement fluff and to answer the Times question: If there were hostages, destruction and mayhem then yes, there were Muslims present.
  • The only time “Islam,” “Muslims” or similar expressions were used was in reporting on statements of the terrorists themselves – as when they railed against the alleged mistreatment of Muslims in Kashmir and India or demanded that “mujahedeen” prisoners be released. Sky News reported that the terrorists called
    on the Indian government “to return stolen Muslim lands” – which, in the wide world of Islam, is all of India.


    Nope! No flashing neon sign clues there NY Times. Move along nothing to see idiots
  • ender
    fox news put out that they might be hindu extremests, not wanting to say the M word.
    next they will call them radical Amish because they have beards
  • The New York Slimes ......
    All cannon , no balls....
blog comments powered by Disqus