After defending abortion organ harvesting, the NYT now defends radical Islam

Wednesday, December 02, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Radical Islam, New York Times, terrorism

---

(NaturalNews) The New York Times recently proved once again why the "newspaper of record" continues to shed readers and advertisers, this time by reminding us what we have known and realized for quite some time – that not all Muslims are extremist-killers.

Yes, we get that. We know that – like not all whites are racists; not all conservatives are "homophobes;" and not all of what President Obama says is truthful.

But did The Times really have to remind us of this obvious fact when there was still blood on the streets of Paris following those horrific, ISIS-planned and sponsored attacks that left nearly 130 people dead? Apparently the paper's editors thought so.

As noted by Pamela Geller in a column for Breitbart News a few days after the Nov. 30 attacks:

"Blood still stains the streets of Paris. France is in a deep state of shock; it is a nation of walking wounded. A British survivor of the concert at Bataclan tells how ISIS terrorists 'tortured wounded victims by slitting their stomachs with knives.' The media isn't reporting these gruesome details. They are over Paris – not even a week has passed and The New York Times, the Associated Press and the rest of elite herd are promoting and proselytizing for Islam. It chills the blood."

In search of 'moderate' Muslims

The Times story headlined, "Muslims Defend Islam From Being Hijacked by ISIS," opened thusly:

"Muslims around the world who have condemned the deadly attacks in Paris carried out by militants of the Islamic State are speaking out to defend their religion."

Okay, but as Geller notes, where are The Times stories of Muslims "defending" their religion from being hijacked by al Qaeda? Boko Haram? Hamas? Hezbollah? Al Shabaab? The Muslim Brotherhood? Or any of scores of Muslim groups? All practice violence in the name of Islam. All kill in the name of Islam. All reject other religions in the name of Islam.

The point is, Geller writes, "ISIS is nothing new." Muslim groups have been "hijacking" the Islamic faith for centuries. "Who is The New York Times trying to kid?"

All of us, apparently. Or maybe just themselves.

Geller writes:

"In the wake of 9/11, the New York Times went to their appointed moderate imam to sell the same steaming pile of dung that they are selling today. Their imam was Anwar al-Awlaki – the imam of the 9/11 Muslim terrorists and other jihadis. Fifteen years later, they have learned nothing. How did Anwar al-Awlaki not teach them anything? No. No mea culpa, no introspection. As an authority, the Times still cites Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Where's Ibn Warraq? Robert Spencer? Bat Ye'or? Where are the scholars of Islam who explain what is happening and why? What's it going to take?"

Nothing new for The Times

Sure, if you look around you can find a "moderate Muslim" who will condemn these groups and the horrific acts of terrorism and violence they commit in the name of their religion. But that's just it – you have to go searching for them, because the leading Muslim organizations don't voluntarily stand up and reject violence and terrorism committed by their ideological brethren.

Think of this, too. Israel must suffer through attacks on its citizens daily, launched by militant Muslims incited to do violence by their imams and their own holy book, the Koran. But somehow these incidents, this kind of instruction, go unnoticed by the elitist mainstream media in America. A Russian passenger plane is blown out of the sky and all for Allah, yet just days later that story has become old news.

None of this is being done by "moderate Muslims." What's more, none of this violence is ever thwarted by "moderate Muslims."

The paper goes on to quote a couple of "moderate" Muslims, all of whom say, generally, that the Koran and Islam in general do not condone the killing of innocents. But that's just it – "infidels" are not considered innocent, and anyone who isn't Muslim is an infidel.

The Times' reporters and editors know all of this, but because they view their own people and government in an unfavorable light due to their liberal, regressive ideology, it's easy to look past the numerous transgressions of a violent religion.

But what should we expect? This is the same newspaper that supports and defends all sorts of miscreant behaviors.

Sources:

Breitbart.com

NYTimes.com

NaturalNews.com