Posted on 01/19/2015 8:20:25 AM PST by SeekAndFind
What is the New York Times’ first response after Muslims massacred secular cartoonists and Jews? Start immediately collecting Muslim whining to bolster claims of Islamophobia. (via Israel Matzav)
In the aftermath of the Paris attacks last week, the New York Times is understandably interested in hearing about the experiences of minorities in Europe these days. That is commendable. It’s just the kind of journalism that sheds light on everyday life of people facing adversity the world over. It’s important and informative and insightful, and we applaud it, and look forward to reading it.
Scratch that. Actually, the Times is obsessively interested in the experiences of only one minority group in Europe: Muslims.
To that end, the paper has issued a call to its Muslim readers abroad to share their experiences.“The deadly attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French newspaper that lampooned Islam, and a kosher grocery store heightened tensions in Europe, where the increasing radicalization of young Muslims appears to coincide with a growing anti-Islamic sentiment.”
Muslims kill a bunch of people. The New York Times wants Muslim experiences with anti-Islamic sentiment. There’s something very obviously wrong here, especially since the New York Times is willfully neglecting the experiences of the Jews in France who were attacked.
The New York Times changed the wording to be more general once it was highlighted, but this whole incident only serves to remind us that the paper of record is dedicated to ignoring the suffering of the victims of Islamic terrorism while sketching sympathetic narratives of their attackers. Which is exactly what the paper went on to do.
Bttt
The NYT is just salivating waiting for some mussie business or anything mussie to be targeted by some Christian group (so-called) or a professed Tea Party member ....
a la the White House and State Department all extremely defensive of Islam. What’s the old line, “carrying their water.”
The NYT loves whoever looks most effective at killing off western culture.
Which, oddly, is the culture that gave rise to the NYT.
Pseudointellectualism can lead one in some odd directions.
White Europeans are the source of all misery and insult that non-white, third world poor people must endure.
Guilty by virtue of “whiteness” and “prosperity.”
When you're a Leftist you don't have to think.
Yo, NYT, infidel lives matter!
“where the increasing radicalization of young Muslims appears to coincide with a growing anti-Islamic sentiment.”
Not even a writer for the NYT could be this stupid.
I wasn't terribly political, but I paid some attention to their news coverage. One of the first things that turned me into a political person was that I noticed that Israel would do a lot of good and reasonable things, and the Palestinians would do a lot of terrible and unreasonable things, and the NYT weas always 100% against Israel and 100% in support of the Palestinians. And I said, "What the heck is that all about?"
Then I realized that I has been reading the NYT because I cared about the culture of the West, and the NYT was actively trying to destroy Western Civilization. I woke up fast after that hit me.
The continuing saga of the journalistic equivalent of suicide bombing.
This is flat not true. NYTimes and much of USA cares a lot about all helping all enemies of USA, pieceful religion or other, foreign and domestic.
Not even a writer for the NYT could be this stupid.
That's yet another example of a classic left-wing strategy.
When you are caught with your time-honored theories in a shambles, and it is obvious to everyone that your position and philosophy is sheer poppycock, simply reverse cause and effect, making it look like the thing that is the obvious cause is the effect and the thing that is the obvious reaction is actually the cause.
This is more designed to give your followers a fig-leaf to protect their feelings - after having been shown to be totally wrong - than it is intended to actually convince the other side that they are misguided.
Great tag line.
Head over heels for the muzzies.
I know the New York Times and liberals are incapable of empathy but I would like them to imagine a world where every act of extreme violence was met with 'concern' it was gay men behind it.
Then to add insult to injury the MSM of that time would run to the aid of whatever group actually did the killing... based on the fear 'that group' would suffer blowback....
It's crazy - OR folks like those at the New York Times are evil.
Not true—they really love another group slated for extinction—Progressive liberals.
Which, oddly, is the culture that gave rise to the NYT.
Pseudointellectualism can lead one in some odd directions
I think they have some odd belief that somehow, if the barbarians they cheer on actually take over, the barbarians will remember the NYT's arsekissing and spare them.
But they will more likely play the frog to the barbarian's scorpion.
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.