From UK Telegraph just now.
Posted on 12/26/2009 5:19:00 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Imagine that there had been a series of three incidents in which members of a [invented for present purposes] fanatical Jewish sect had attempted to bring down airliners from Arab countries.
In reporting on the latest attempt and describing the previous ones, do you think the New York Times might have mentioned the religion of the perpetrators? So do I.
But with the ledgermain required to describe a spiral staircase without using one's hands, the Gray Lady has managed in its article today to report yesterday's attempt to bring down a NWA airliner, and the earlier attempts by Richard Reid [the "shoebomber'] and the those who plotted to bring down as many as ten jets leaving the UK for the United States jets, without using the word "Muslim."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Amish?
There are THREE missing words! BLACK ISLAMIC TERRORIST.
From UK Telegraph just now.
helical flight of steps
MIA...
J-word,
I-word, AND
M-word
Richard Reid singlehandedly caused a billion humans to take off their shoes in deference to his act. What religion is big on taking off shoes as a sign of respect? Hmmm.
Now all Americans will get to do a little more at the airport in order to catch a flight. Get ready to be required to take off your shoes and socks, roll up your pants to the knees and kneel at the metal detector. Somehow they are going to figure out how to require TSA to put a crescent moon on metal detectors.
How it should have read
This whole concept of “man-caused disaster” deserves a little more analysis than it’s gotten: it sounds exactly like an insurance term, ironically, joined to and NOT directly opposed to “Act of God”. YET, a terrorist act IS in a sense an Act of God, in that it’s being perpetrated ON BEHALF OF Allula Akbar, or Mohammed, and as such, your “insurance” probably won’t pay for the damages.
Of course, the way they want us to take it is that “man-caused disaster” is merely, and once again, a Law Enforcement issue, and not to be considered on any level an “Act of War”(or its other corollary, an “Act of God”) Even Orwell would be stupified at how far adrift we’ve allowed ourselves to get with our language.
We’re asked to accept conceptualizations that even the feebleminded could see through.
This whole concept of “man-caused disaster” deserves a little more analysis than it’s gotten: it sounds exactly like an insurance term, ironically, joined to and NOT directly opposed to “Act of God”. YET, a terrorist act IS in a sense an Act of God, in that it’s being perpetrated ON BEHALF OF Allula Akbar, or Mohammed, and as such, your “insurance” probably won’t pay for the damages.
Of course, the way they want us to take it is that “man-caused disaster” is merely, and once again, a Law Enforcement issue, and not to be considered on any level an “Act of War”(or its other corollary, an “Act of God”) Even Orwell would be stupified at how far adrift we’ve allowed ourselves to get with our language.
We’re asked to accept conceptualizations that even the feebleminded could see through.
OK, you’re permanently cleared through TSA security ;-)
Stupid? I never hear the media talk about how ever-loving stupid these goat-herders are.
Talk about the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Nothing like a little comedy to spice up a good tragedy.
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.