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 ...
I hope all red the Ralph Peters editorial that minces no words in the NY Post: When the Killers Come for the Kids.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28066.htm
Yes, National People's Radio today has been careful always to refer to them as "militants."
What a joke.
Don't know where I read it, but it was written that George H.W. Bush stated that he would not read it anymore. I gave up long ago. I think to give that paper any credibility, you have to be a Kool-Aid Drinker.
Don't know where I read it, but it was written that George H.W. Bush stated that he would not read it anymore. I gave up long ago. I think to give that paper any credibility, you have to be a Kool-Aid Drinker.
Getting the press to use the correct name is not enough for me.
The media should be showing the inside of that school. Cover the faces of the dead, but the world needs to see that carnage, to look into the face of this evil.
We do not truly begin to fight until we stare into this abyss.
"Terrorist" is the word they use to mean "Republican". Unless, of course they are using "Hitler-like", "hate-filled" or "extremist". With words like those in use to demonize people they disagree with there just isn't any adjectives left to describe people who actually are hate-filled extremist terrorists.
"George H.W. Bush stated that he would not read it (The NY Times) anymore."
Some enterprising toilet paper maker can make some NY times TP rolls. I would buy some. Gladly.
I was ecstatic when President Bush slapped the face of the NYT's in his convention speech. They have turned their slogan into a laughing stock.
Michelle is an absolute genius.
"The media should be showing the inside of that school. Cover the faces of the dead, but the world needs to see that carnage, to look into the face of this evil."
Well...did you see any of those pictures from 9-11? All networks, including FOX, have them. No one shows them.
I wish I knew how to attach those pics here. I have quite a few.
I propose an amendment to the Freerepublic Ann Coulter by-laws : to wit, henceforth all post pertaining to or referencing Ms Michelle Malkin must by code include photographs of said person Michelle Malkin.
I always believed that 911 was an adequate wake up call to the New York MSM. Looks like they pressed the snooze button, instead.
They're STILL ASLEEP AT THE F'in SWITCH ! ! !
No. That's the point.
I've seen stills of the jumpers, but I know motion pictures exist. Those motion pictures should be available to all.
"Michelle is an absolute genius."
MICHELLE IS THE GODDESS OF TRUTH.
(And I'm taking credit for nominating her. Its an honor.)
What I wanna know is when will the masses stop subscribing to the NY Times? It has become complete yellow sheet propaganda! Why is it still considered an influential paper, for cryin out loud?
Once again, the lovely Ms Malkin is right.
And she continues to be easy on the eyes.
Let's face it people, no one here reads this trash for it's journalistic integrity. I read through it to catch the nuanced bias that permeates this and so many other sources of information.
"all post pertaining to or referencing Ms Michelle Malkin must by code include photographs of said person Michelle Malkin.
I second that.
(If I knew how to do it I would.)
"She's yet another conservative woman who is brave and has a brilliant way with words."
Michelle can discuss the immigration and profiling issue in a way that white American borns can not. I can to a point as an immigrant, but I'm from Greece and male. The effect is not the same. Not to mention is alot better looking. For a woman.
Out here in Calif. we put a big dent in the LA Times when they were so openly biased against Arnold in his run for Gov. I even talked my Aunt into cancelling her subscription after 50 years.
What's absurd, is that the media think they are doing something PC so as not to offend the vast majority of law abiding muslims in the world. In reality, they are increasing negative images and hostilities toward muslims. By NOT differentiating and labelling these terrorists as such, they give the impression that all muslims are radical, militant murderers.
The New York Post is the only decent newspaper I've found. I subscribe to the Sunday edition, and I live in Alaska!
It is truly amazing to see the people of NYC, who saw the smoldering ruins of the WTC with their own eyes, and buried their own loved ones; it amazes me to see them suck up to the Religion of Peace, and believe the hallucenogenic lie that the government somehow knew about what would happen.
Fools.
I second the motion!
You just know some of their editors are the kind of folks who'd love to shoot some young children in the back.
-PJ
I'm surprised they didn't call them "ethnic freedom fighters".
They know if the word terrorists was used it = Bush Help. Simple as that.
"George H.W. Bush stated that he would not read it (The NY Times) anymore."
LOL
I'd cancel my subscription to it, if I hadn't forbidden that rag to be brought into the house more than ten years ago!
You wrote:
"Is it possible that the New York Times actually sponsored the terrorist attack in Russia?
You just know some of their editors are the kind of folks who'd love to shoot some young children in the back."
[Anti-DU lurker torpedo ARMED. FIRE!]
Yeah, I believe it's the next step after 'partial birth
abortion'. It's called 'retroactive abortion'.
See also Pete Singer of Princeton (who wants legal
infanticide up to a month, and--I've heard--advocates sex with dogs).
I have a sense that most here would be satisfied if that one word were substituted with "terrorists" or whatever, but let me stress, if you can't trust that key characterization, knowing it is politically motivated, how can you trust anything else in the story? Anything?
Let's not forget the ever popular "Insurgents" also.
Is it time to tell the muslim/moslem folks this tent ain't big enough to cover their sorry likes.......
Okay. It is now an established precedent. The Coulter Rule is now the Coulter/Malkin rule. The people have spoken.
I've noticed something similar. If we're "lucky" we hear the islamofascists being referred to as terrorists. More often than not, they are "insurgents" or "militants" or some such nonsense. I forget who it was I was listening to the other day (talk radio), but the fellow pointed out that "terrorism" is a vehicle. A "terrorist" is one who uses the vehicle of terrorism. But it in no way describes what that person's motives are. What, how dare we impugn a person for his motives? Well, I will.
We should recognise that islamofascists use terrorism as a vehicle to achieve their sick goals. They are still islamofascists, and should be referred to as such. ALWAYS.
Note that I DO NOT capitalize the "I" in islamofascists. They do not deserve the respect that capitalism implies.
Once their smart enough to give political titles to their head vermin they will be viewed by the NYTimes as Islamic Nationalist Revolutionaries!
It's almost as if the MSM is more afraid of the islamics than us....an incorrect and very very dangerous assumption on their part.
Unconstitutional LIES and TREASON will one day no longer be tolerated.
That closeup shot of an injured child's hand clenching the gold cross is Pulitzer material. Says it all.
Who reads TABLOIDS anyway.
I'm almost surprised the NYT didn't refer to these muslim terrorists as "Freedom Fighters".
They'll never change and for that reason I'm glad that the liberal bias was pointed out by President George H W Bush and others during the convention.
It isn't - except among politicians and the liberal pseudo-elite.
You don't really think that folks in middle America give a tinker's damn about what an east-coast ultra-liberal "tabloid" writes do you?
The NY Times lost all its "paper-of-record" status when it lost its unbiased objectivity. No serious person now takes a Times article at face value.
Respect in the media is hard to come by, difficult to keep, and easy to lose.
BUMP
They can't change, it was this PC Multicultural moral relativism wing of the democratic party that took the party in a direction good guys like Zell Miller could not stand. The concept that everybody needs to be more sensitive to one another is just another way the left is seeking unilateral disarmmament. Nothing less.
And this is the same rag that's trying to get Effin' Kerry elected?
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.