Posted on 09/28/2004 7:01:12 AM PDT by Homo_homini_lupus
September 21, 2004
Letter Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
In today's article reporting the decapitation by terrorists in Iraq of American civilian Eugene Armstrong, The Times reporter wrote:
"In the video of the beheading, an insurgent wearing a ski mask and surrounded by four men with assault rifles says the group is killing Mr. Armstrong because the American occupiers and the interim Iraqi government failed to meet the deadline. Much of the man's long speech is addressed to President Bush, who is called a dog at one point."
Please note that the news article omitted an important part of the story which was the exact phrase uttered by the executioner at the time he cut Armstrong's throat and severed his head from his body. That phrase was, "Oh you Christian dog, Bush, stop your arrogance."
The reference to President Bush by the terrorist strengthens the belief of many that we are involved in a war of civilizations. Fanatic Islamists believe that Christians and Jews who do not recognize the supremacy of Islam should die. That awful message is part of the story and The Times erred in not carrying that quote which many other papers did.
[...snip...]
Your reporter refers to the spokesman for the murderers as an "insurgent." What would it take for The Times to call someone who has just participated in the beheading of an innocent civilian a terrorist? I am sure the public would like to know.
All the best.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Me! Me! I know! I know! Because the NYT is a lying, filthy, liberal RAG!
What did I win?
"47.4": So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates.
The point is that they are beheading people because George Bush, cowboy from Texas, has antagonized these formerly peace-loving islamics with his callous disregard for France, the Kyoto Treaty, and his own National Guard obligations.
The core of liberalism is the hatred of God. The liberal press goes easy on any enemy of Christianity. Anyone who denies the religious element has their eyes closed.
I'm kinda sorry I never voted for Ed.
The reason is simple - the NYT believes in the separation of church and hate.
Why are they ignoring the fact that sKery won't release his tax records and financial holdings, his medical records(he has cancer remember) or the 100 pages of his military record the Wash Post says are still unavailable to the media.
would MEDIA BIAS possibly be at play here, DUH.
The NY Times just doesn't think religion is newsworthy, except as a propaganda weapon to bash right-wing Christians.
When Musharref gave his speech to the Pakistani nation explaining why he had decided to ally Pakistan with Bush and the WOT, he took half the speech--about ten minutes, recounting the history of Muhammed.
What he said, basically, is that Muhammed made a solemn treaty with the Jews of Medina against the Arab infidels, and then when it was convenient he broke his word and attacked his Jewish allies. Then he returned to Mecca, made a treaty with the infidels, and broke that when it was convenient. What he was obviously saying is that it was necessary to make a treaty with the infidel Americans at that time, but that it could be broken as soon as the situation changed. Islam allows breaking your solemn word to a Jew or an infidel.
The NY Times omitted this whole part of Musharref's speech in their transcription the next day. Probably it was the most important part of the speech. But to the Times it was just empty religious babbling, so it meant nothing.
They are morons.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Gee, I wonder how the Times missed it.
Ed Koch comes forth with some more wisdom. Props to you Ed!
While the NYT media elite may be giving him a pass, the general public isn't, according to the polls.
And we all know that this is a war against Islamic fundamentalists, even if the NYT staunchly refuses to identify them as such, to their shame for sure!
Being called an insurgent is so much more civilized than these head sawing Islamic savages deserve.
The evidence of the NYT's sanitizing their words, camouglagin their religious intolerance and outright hatred....yes HATRED!!! the most heinous of PC crimes! is overwhelming and quite frightening.
Who do they think they are? How are they allowed to alter their exact words and sanitize their image? What hypocrites!!!
The NY Times omitted this whole part of Musharref's speech in their transcription the next day. Probably it was the most important part of the speech. But to the Times it was just empty religious babbling, so it meant nothing.
Do you have any links to pieces about this?
Thanks.
My goodness, that is an extraordinarily stupid & offensive thing to say. My mother, bless her soul, was both a liberal and a believer. Do you really believe that tripe, or are you just a troll, trying to make us look bad?
Help needed at 17.
If Christians were slaughtering innocent individuals, the NYT would have this on page one for days on end, investigating ties to various charities and churches, the theology behind the whole thing, where politicians stood on the issue, etc. Every angle would be covered to the Nth degree, with only token differentiation between the terrorists and honest conservative Christians, until the maximum damage possible was done to Christianity.
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.