Posted on 09/04/2004 5:42:49 PM PDT by dinok
Take a look at how this front-page New York Times article describes the perpetrators of the siege in Beslan. Notice anything? The killers are called "guerrillas" and "fighters" and "armed captors" but not "terrorists." At one point the article grudgingly refers to these savage murderers as "people that Mr. Putin calls terrorists." In more than 1,750 words, the article includes not one reference to the religion of the Muslim perpetrators. Not one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/international/europe/04russia.html?pagewanted=print&position=
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Terrorist: You won’t use my name will you?
Me: What do you mean?
Terrorist: How will you describe me?
Me: Ugly. Smells like a pig in heat. Too much hair. Small backbone.
Terrorist: No, no. I mean, what will you call me?
Me: Call you? You’re not my style. I will never call you.
Terrorist: No, no. How will you refer to me? Will you call me a freedom fighter?
Me: Are you for freedom?
Terrorist: No. Freedom is for the weak. Men must be ruled by Allah or be tortured and killed.
Me: Are you a fighter?
Terrorist: Yes. I will mutilate and destroy your women and children whenever I can.
Me: You would fight women and children?
Terrorist: No. Women are scary. They can be very mean. I will blow them up when they are not looking.
Me: No, I will not call you a freedom fighter.
Terrorist: How about militant. Will you refer to me as a militant?
Me: Are you in the military? Do you wear a uniform?
Terrorist: No. No. If terrorists wore uniforms we would be shot on sight. Even by women and children. Maybe even by each other. Being a terrorist is a very tricky thing.
Me: No, I will not refer to you as a militant.
Terrorist: Armed militant then.
Me: Why?
Terrorist: We are not so different. We have arms and legs and toes. Referring to me as an armed militant makes me appear more human.
Me: No.
Terrorist: How about insurgent? You could call me an insurgent.
Me: What government are you revolting against?
Terrorist: All of them. All governments are against chaos. Infidels have taken over all governments.
Me: What about the Arab nations?
Terrorist: Praised be Allah. He has given the faithful many blessings. Many acres of rock and desert to call our own. In some places, there are even trees. We have used these lands to build a great civilization.
Me: What are the accomplishments of your civilization?
Terrorist: We are great killers of the infidels. And have many fine recipes for scorpions.
Me: No. I will not refer to you as an insurgent.
Terrorist: How about guerrilla? You could call me a guerrilla.
Me: No. Guerrillas, though they are animals, like you, have a certain dignity. They are somewhat man-like. It would be too much of an insult to those fine creatures.
Terrorist: How then will you refer to me?
Me: I will call you a terrorist. A murderer. Human filth.
Terrorist: How dare you! I am not a republican.
Me: Can you wind surf?
I woncder if the NY Times hit the Holocaust during the '40s. Does anyone know?
"Can you wind surf?"
This is a keeper. Thanks.
Even after all the terror of last week, we all need a good laugh.
Here in Canada, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) has been referring to them as "desperate Chechen separatists".
The former "paper of record" is a dying institution, its heyday long, long gone. Over the past decade especially, the NY Times has devolved into a shameless mouthpiece for political correctness and the left-most fringe of the Democrat Party. The paper has marginalized itself and like a cornered rat that knows it is about to die, it is lashing out furiously and hysterically. I predict it will be gone (at least in its present form) within ten years. It's all over for the Times except for the crying.
Good riddance to bad garbage.
"Here in Canada, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) has been referring to them as "desperate Chechen separatists"."
I would leave Canada.
I'm sure they did, but a little too late. Like being slow about the threat of the USSR. Back in the mid 20th Century the NYT was a fair to middling paper until they were over taken by political correctness.
She is a babe! :-)
She is a brilliant and talented babe! :-)
She is a married, brilliant, and talented babe! :-(
(there go the fantasies... :-( )
Mark
You just know some of their editors are the kind of folks who'd love to shoot some young children in the back.
Well, they're still covering up for Stalin's murderous rampage in the Ukraine, by defending (I think it's) Walter Duranty's articles.
Mark
But the Israelis are always extremists.
The Times chose sides a long time ago. And it ain't America.
BODIES OF CHILDREN are laid out near a hospital in sourhern Russia after a hostage crisis erputed into explosions and gunfire, killling at least 200 people. Commandos stormed a school where Islamic militants strapped with bombs had held some 1,200 people hostage. At least 20 militants were killed, including 10 Arabs
I love IBD. Emphasis mine.
BUMP
While I lived in NYC, the only useful part of the NY Times were the help wanted sections, and their crossword.
When I first moved there I searched in vain for editorial articles with a common sense viewpoint. later I noticed their bias also appeared in their reporting.
It was cheaper to just borrow someone else's sections than buy the rest of the garbage, unless we had a successful day fishing.
Anybody unable to use the word "terrorist" to describe people who shoot young children in the back, are political girlie-men.
"While I lived in NYC, the only useful part of the NY Times were the help wanted sections, and their crossword."
I spent my teen years in New York and remember conservatives in long Island refusing to read the Times. But as there was no net then, they often had no choice. I read it for a few years after I left in 1980 and stopped around the late 80's. By then my conservatism was comming out strong and the Times seemed like a thing of my mispent youth.
And now we see headlines like these.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
This cleric had the gall to say "The Mujahideen [Chechen rebels] would not have wanted to kill those people, because it is strictly forbidden as a Muslim to deliberately kill women and children. It is the fault of the Russians,"
Survivors told of children fleeing after the explosions and being shot in the back by these "peaceful Muslims". I'm still waiting, no doubt fruitlessly, for moderate Muslims to denounce these fringe militant groups for what they are, vile poison on this earth.
Actually... some Arabs are starting to get it. In my opinion, they are not so upset by the fact that kids were murdered, but by how much the link of terror to muslims will hurt the Arab cause.
Arab world also in shock-"The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists Are Muslims!"
( why does one need to specify a particular To: ? )
More than one person has complained that there are no good papers. Hey, what's wrong with the Washington Times?
The Wall St Journal's Opinion section rocks, IMHO ( James Taranto Uber Alles!)
I've never subscribed to the NYT, but I'm gonna call them and cancel ANYWAY!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.