Posted on 09/30/2005 6:01:06 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne
To The Washington Post they were simply “gunmen.” The New York Times non-judgmentally called them “armed men.”
The elite media fastidiously avoid such harsh words as "terrorist" – even to describe those who, last week, rounded up five Iraqi teachers from outside their school, dragged them into a classroom, lined them up against a wall and shot them to death.
The Post was quick to inform readers that “no children were hurt in the attack.” Are we to regard that as restraint on the part of these “gunmen”?
The Times noted that “the killings appeared to have been motivated more by sectarian hatred than any animosity toward the [teaching] profession.” Is that meant to be reassuring?
In a bygone era, reporters would have let readers know in no uncertain terms how thoroughly they despise and condemn those who massacre teachers in a schoolroom. Nor would they have minced words in regard to those who blow up civilians or ritually decapitate “infidels.”
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Or is it clowns on parade?
It's the result of decades of being taught to tolerate evil and make no moral judgments. (Except, of course, that George Bush is evil...)
I wonder if they murdered all the newspaper editors and reporters if their story lines would change?
But of course they wouldnt do that. They are all on the same side..........
The rotting fruits of Liberalism. A weed in the garden of life.
One more shovel full on the grave of Liberal Journalism.
I'm surprised the NY Slimes hasn't changed its name to "The Freedom Fighter Daily" with the statement "Allah Akbar" at the end of each opinion editorial.
Unlike the 320 Beslan school children who were executed by islamic terrorists just a little more than 1 year ago...
The NY Times doesn't let little things like facts get in the way of reporting.
But of course they wouldnt do that. They are all on the same side..........
...for the moment. Unless we gownups stop the Islamofascists, win the WOT, the liberals time will come.
"Alternatively, would they contend that barbarism in pursuit of stability is justifiable? If so, why not propose the U.S. military adopt such tactics? And why cavil about Abu Ghraib? "
This quote from the article says alot and I would like answers from the libs on it.
at least they didn't cut their heads off....
Islamists don't like young girls being educated. They think it's their right to butcher teachers of young girls!
The Slimes doesn't care about that either unless it happens to one of theirs and of course they would still blame George Bush for it since he created a war for oil that caused the reporter to cover it.
Warped Mentality
Nothing the Times did would surprise me at this point!
And they cleverly hid the fact that these were five WOMEN school teachers.
The OLD MEDIA doesn't want WE citizens knowing how truly scummy these terorists are. It backfires on their anti-American articles.
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.