| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| If this Isn't Terrorism, What Is? |
| 2008-12-03 |
| By TOM GROSS Last week in Mumbai we witnessed as clear a case of carefully planned mass terrorism as we are ever likely to see. The seven-venue atrocity was coordinated in a highly sophisticated way. The terrorists used BlackBerrys to stay in touch with each other during their three-and-half-day rampage, outwitting the authorities by monitoring international reaction to the attacks on British, Urdu and Arabic Web sites. It was a meticulously organized operation aimed exclusively at civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading tourist restaurant and a Jewish center. There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff. The terrorists didn't want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other "infidels" as they could, and in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed. So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain's most respected TV journalists, use the word "practitioners" when referring to the Mumbai terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors? Why did Britain's highly regarded Channel 4 News state that the "militants" showed a "wanton disregard for race or creed" when exactly the opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected. Why did the "experts" invited to discuss the Mumbai attacks in one show on the state-funded Radio France Internationale, the voice of France around the world, harp on about Baruch Goldstein (who carried out the Hebron shootings in 1994), virtually the sole case of a Jewish terrorist in living memory? |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #8 As has been noted elsewhere, the damage done by the BBC is incalculable - it has all that programming in all those languages, and carries a presumption of legitimacy and accuracy in many quarters (esp. those far less likely to be aware of its systematic, extreme, and even bizarre bias). I still recall hearing a BBC broadcast late at night in DC - the local NPR carried the first morning news show (there's double poison - NPR and BBC). I was driving on an empty interstate. The host was doing a live interview with an Israeli military spokesman about an IDF raid in a West Bank town (this was during the extended - and successful - response to the Palestinian terror offensive capped by the Netanya Passover massacre). The IDF guy was not "English," but clearly a Hebrew-speaker, English a second language. The host asked whether the IDF had discontinued operations in the town because (exact quote) "you have killed enough people?". I almost swerved. There was incredibly powerful "dead air" as the IDF spokesman, surely, struggled to make sure he had heard the question correctly. He mumbled some sort of reasonable response. At home, one is amazed and appalled at the MSM-inspired nonsense that comes out of peoples' mouths. Abroad, we have the BBC carrying water for dictators, fascists, racists, genocidal maniacs, bigots, and murderous religious fanatics - so long as they're anti-US or anti-western or anti-Israel. Anyone really wonder how we elect non-entities at home, and deal with mass hysteria abroad? |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-12-03 19:06 |
| #7 BBC Radio 2 at one point merely referred to the murderers as "determined gunmen"... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2008-12-03 18:35 |
| #6 “Unfortunately in recent years we have become used to leftist media burying their heads in the sand about the threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses, in much the same way as they once refused to report accurately on communist atrocities.” Gross’s analogy is spot on. However, this is not a recent phenomenon as he suggests. The media’s PC reporting is a “symptom” of the long held refusal, for many (Left and Right), to acknowledge that Islamic fundamentalism is an ideology that is grounded by a religion. Similar symptoms appear every time the “Hearts and Minds” crowd argue that placing the Taliban on the US Terrorist list would be a mistake. And even though Sheik Rahman after the ’93 WTC bombing correctly citied passages that proved the Koran justified his deplorable actions, many “experts” display comparable symptoms as they continue to say that AQ simply perverts the Muslim religion. Until the civilized world comes to grips with the fact that the “Underlying Cause Theory” is not identified simply by supporting dictators, poverty, oppression, or some other esoteric cause we will continue to have “leaders” like Obama say, “We don’t want to make Bin Laden a martyr.” |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2008-12-03 10:24 |
| #5 They are going a fair job of exterminating themselves, the media I mean. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-12-03 10:11 |
| #4 ................... exterminate them all. |
| Posted by: Last Breath Farm Resident 2008-12-03 08:46 |
| #3 West bank settlements? Using sonar where it can discommode marine mammals? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-12-03 05:37 |
| #2 The media did the exact same thing during the Beslan attacks up in Russia. They absolutely refused to call them 'terrorists' or even 'muslims'. Instead they called them 'gangsters' or 'hostage-takers'. The f-king New York Times still refuses to call them what they are. Deliberately and with full knowledge of their intent, and knowing that it will encourage even more of these acts, covering up for the terrorists once again. The editors of the NYT have blood on their hands. Now to find out that the mother in the jewish center was 6 months pregnant as she was tortured and murdered. And the 2 year old baby had been beaten. Via Atlas Shrugs. Religion of peace my ass. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-12-03 01:25 |
| #1 ION FREEREPUBLIC > HAWAII HOSPITALS TO OBAMA: YOU WERE NOT BORN HERE??? The gang at FREEP are going ballistic o'er this one, as per Barack's per se CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBITY TO RUN FOR, + BE, POTUS??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-12-03 00:25 |