THE NEW YORK TIMES, Part 1: "A" isn't "A" if we refuse to call it "A"
"All The News That's Fit To Print" has been the motto of The New York Times since its inception.
But "fit" --- as defined by, and according to whom?
Apparently, according to the powers that believe it is a cardinal sin to clearly identify and apply rational standards to jihadists, and their appeasers and exponents --- primarily in the form of the young Muslims they've brainwashed.Case in point: The front page of the Saturday, October 21, 2006 issue sports a huge above-the-fold picture of an outdoor photo exhibit in France, depicting the larger-than-life faces of three young Muslims.
The cover story that it accentuates,
(THIS is how French dhimmis attempt to "counter stereotypes" of Muslim terrorists in their midst --- by depicting them in their unrestrained, hysterical facial rage?)
The story obviously refers to the intifada that young Muslims instigated in France over the past 12 months, which was, itself, part of a global jihadist war against Western values and cultures.
Yet in this entire 1,600-word article, how many times were the words "Muslim," or "Islam," or "Islamist," or "jihad," used?
ZERO. Not a SINGLE time.
Instead, they are referred to as "the offspring of Arab and African immigrants."
Gosh, does that mean they could be Christians, or Buddhists, or Hindus... or atheists? Or anything BUT Muslims?
Thankfully, the Fox News Channel is actually covering this story:
French Police Face Attacks by Growing 'Intifada'
Key excerpts:
In France, a high school teacher received death threats, forcing him into hiding, after he wrote a newspaper editorial in September saying Muslim fundamentalists are trying to muzzle Europe's democratic liberties. Ethnic integration and violence against police are both becoming issues in the campaign for the French presidency. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the leading contender on the right, said this month that those who do not love France do not have to stay, echoing a longtime slogan of the extreme-right National Front: "France, love it or leave it."Michel Thooris, head of the small Action Police union, claims that the new violence is taking on an Islamic fundamentalist tinge. "Many youths, many arsonists, many vandals behind the violence do it to cries of 'Allah Akbar' (God is Great) when our police cars are stoned," he said in an interview. Larger, more mainstream police unions sharply disagree that the suburban unrest has any religious basis. However, they do say that some youth gangs no longer seem content to throw stones or torch cars and instead appear determined to hurt police officers — or worse."First, it was a rock here or there. Then it was rocks by the dozen. Now, they're leading operations of an almost military sort to trap us," said Loic Lecouplier, a police union official in the Seine-Saint-Denis region north of Paris. "These are acts of war."
I wonder when this story is going to be included in our network TV nightly news roundup???
Graphic showing the locations throughout France where Muslims were rioting,
burning cars and property, attacking police officers and others ---
leading to some to rename the nation "Francistan"
THE NEW YORK TIMES, Part 2: Let's Bribe Jihadists, for Peace!!!
In the same issue of the Times appears an editorial by Paul Cruickshank (a fellow at the Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law), entitled Covered Faces, Open Rebellion, regarding the recent dust-up over a British Muslim's suit against the school she teaches at, for not permitting her to teach while wearing a full-facial veil, called a "niqab."
Like France, Britain has all but bent over and grabbed its ankles in order to not be impolite to the Muslims that it accepts into its culture, many of whom scream for its submission to Islam. According to Cruickshank:
"In a recent poll, more than a quarter of British Muslims under the age of 24 said that the July 7, 2005, attacks on the London Underground were justified because of British foreign policy. Thousands of young British Muslims have been influenced by fundamentalist organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir and militant groups like Al Muhajiroun."
And what is the solution that Cruickshank proposes, to address ths shocking statistic, and the phenomena of jihadist Muslims using violence, terror and intimidation to advance Islam, and force Britain and France into even greater roles of dhimmitude!?
"Calls by British politicians for Muslim women to stop wearing the niqab will only enhance the political symbolism of this act and make its practice more widespread. Instead, what is needed is an ambitious program to address the core grievances of Britain’s young Muslims, for example by creating economic opportunities and tackling discrimination.
Britain’s young Muslims need to be brought into the country’s political process. More Muslims should be encouraged and selected to run for Parliament and to aspire to high office. It will then be much harder for radicals to claim that the British government is at war with Islam. And then we will start seeing far fewer young Muslim women fully veiled."
THIS is the solution?
Thank goodness Cruickshank wasn't around when we went to war against the Nazis; he would have encouraged us to elect Nazis to governmental positions from local dog catcher to the House and Senate, so they would feel more welcome in our culture, and couldn't claim with such ease that we're at war with Nazi Germany --- just with Hitler and his henchmen.
How could Cruickshank, with all his education and experience, be unaware that part of the jihadists' strategy for taking over our culture is to do precisely what he is suggesting!? To inspire hatred and division where there was none before, then claim victimhood, then do whatever is necessary to obtain progressively greater power in said culture?
The Jews, Russians, Italians, Poles, Asians and others who came to America in the last century often possessed nothing but the clothes on their backs --- and a desire to create better lives for themselves and their children. They didn't riot in the streets for welfare handouts, or torch buildings and cars over perceived grievances, or attempt to murder police officers.
Most considered handouts to be an insult; they wanted to be self-sufficient, to the greatest degree humanly possible. They went to work, became educated, and made themselves desirable as workers, neighbors and friends. And in doing so, they became free, valued and important contributors to the mosaic that is the American "melting pot."
When is the last time you heard of a concerted Muslim effort to advance (non-weaponry) science --- or medicine --- or agriculture --- or anything constructive? How many Muslims have applied themselves, personally, to creating genuine peace (not as a result of intimidating spineless politicians and cultures into dhimmitude)?
Yeah. Me either.
And yet, the New York Times apparently sees absolutely nothing wrong with either article.
Somewhere, Osama bin Laden must be laughing his ass off, at the ease with which the Times and other MSM organizations have decided to be so helpful to the advance of jihad.
THE BBC: Finally Admitting Its Anti-Western Bias
Also on October 21, an article appeared in the London Evening Standard that, like earlier articles from other sources, revealed just how biased the esteemed BBC actually is. And the source is... the BBC itself.
Here are some key excerpts from the article, entiled "We Are Biased, Admit The Stars Of BBC News" ---
A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror. It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar' wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.And this is how they propose to preserve their own culture against the jihadist onslaught? This is how they propose to fight, and win, the war on jihadist terror?
In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101. On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran. Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct' it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.
Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.' Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'
This is dhimmitude personified, with a British accent.
© Copyright 2006 by Jon Quixote. All rights reserved. Interested in publishing this item? Contact me at jonquix@hotmail.com for information.
==================================================================
==================================================================
