How could the same man gun down three French soliders in the city of Toulouse — two of them Muslim, the other North African — and then attack children at a Jewish school? Something just didn’t add up. There was “no clear motive” for the attacks, the New York Times said in an early draft of its story on the shooting at Collège et Lycée Ozar Hatorah on Monday. In later versions, after an outcry of disbelief, this was self-protectively revised to read: “Speculation over the motives for the killings ranged from anger at Muslims fighting in Afghanistan — the unit of three of the soldiers has been deployed there — and anti-Semitism, to a hatred of immigrants.”
Wrong. The alleged gunman, who reportedly has claimed all three French shootings, is a 24-year-old Muslim named Mohammad Merah.
Please don’t tell M. Jay Rosenberg of Media Matters Action Network. He will be badly disappointed at the news. When I first wrote about the Toulouse school shooting on Monday, Rosenberg tweeted:
Oops. Oh, well. Rosenberg won’t be alone in trying to cover his tracks. In reporting that “French Police Say They Have Cornered Suspect in School Shooting,” the New York Times earlier today described Merah as a “French national of Algerian descent,” carefully avoiding any mention of his religion. After saying that Merah “told negotiators that he belonged to Al Qaeda,” and after identifying his motives at last (“the attacks were meant to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children and to protest French military deployments abroad”), the Times went on to reveal that Merah “called himself a mujahedeen [sic],” which the newspaper helpfully translated as a “freedom fighter.” (Because, you know, to shoot Jewish schoolchildren in the head at close range is obviously to strike a blow for freedom.)
No further mention was made of Al Qaeda or mujahedeen, and none at all of anti-Semitism or Islamist terror. Instead, the Times found a way, like Rosenberg, to keep talking about rightists. Three times its story mentioned the political right in connection with the murders. Easily the best passage was this:
Muslims [in France] complain widely of feeling vilified by some political elements, on the right in particular, and the anti-immigration far right has been gaining unprecedented popularity in recent months.
Still no mention of Merah’s being a Muslim, by the way. Nor any suggestion that French Jews might complain of feeling targeted for murder.
And so it goes. The campaign by the mainstream media to whitewash Islamist terrorism and pin Jew hatred only on the extreme political right is being conducted even now, even as a self-confessed Islamist terrorist holds French police at bay. In a few hours, of course, Merah will be captured or killed. And the New York Times will have removed all traces of its self-embarrassment again.
Latest reports have the guy a pro who was caught after fighting for the Taliban and escaped and being (not to well) tailed by the French security forces. If the lamestream press finds a way to obfuscate that this guy was an Islamic Arab Jew-hater after the facts are pinned down and still pumps out this pap that this somehow, anyhew, proves that right-wing rights are gunning for Muslims, than the Lord help them, and anyone foolish enough to swallow it.
Yes, this is all so ridiculously absurd that it is laughable. What a crazy world we live in. I think we are all living in a gigantic Mel Brooks movie; and we just don't know it.
Similarly, NPR (National Palestinian (Public?) Radio), a persistent enabler of Islamist propaganda among its well-educated, white liberal and also heavily Jewish audience, yesterday more or less indicted a group of neo-Nazis for the massacre. Today, however, with the French-raised Muslim surrounded by squadrons of well-armed French troops, NPR reports only that the "alleged" killer is of Algerian origin." (It should be noted that many French Jews are also of Algerian origin.) But most importantly unlike yesterday the radio is giving today's event much less importance while at the same time loudly repeating Palestinian Authority Fayyad's hypocritical denunciation of those who use Palestinian children as an excuse to commit violence. And so it feels more and more like 1984 here as the tireless Winston Smiths of America's Trud, Pravda and Izvestia work 24/7 to eliminate any traces leading to the bloody trail of Muslim-inspired terrorism.
It's times like these — when their biases and agendas and manipulation of the news are so obvious and transparent — that make me wonder how the NYT ever came to be regarded as a reasoned, credible 'paper of record' in the first place.
artemislange – At one time, the NYT was a credible newspaper, in particular, when AM Rosenthal was editor. While I may not have agreed with the editorials, I could trust the news. Today, the editorials and the 'news' in the NYT are just about the same thing. They are predictably pro-Left, anti-religion, and distorted beyond belief about Israel. I and others have suggested that the NYT change its slogan to 'All the news that fits our views, that's what we print.' We have to be thankful for the internet and sites like Commentary Contentions for providing an alternative.
Apparently he was linked to an Islamist group Forsane Alizza, a video of which was shown on Israel’s Channel 10 today.
The Guardian also had this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/21/toulouse-shootings-police-raid-house#history-link-box
” The French news channel BFM TV said the suspect was linked to an Islamist group that it identified as Forsane Alizza but it was not immediately possible to confirm this. “
Well, poor Fayad's days are numbered anyways. n nBut how sick in the head does a Jewish pervert like Rosenberg have to be to snark that (real) Jews would lose interest if a killer of our children were a neo-Nazi rather than a jihadist? How can any compos mentis Jewish agency or board defend maintaining ties with his partner in heresy, J-Street? When did the Jews of America become so astoundingly butt-stupid?
Makes me ill. n nAnd what of the Times? I can't believe the crap they get away with publishing about high-impact world events, when their editors will discuss the choice of a two letter word for 20 minutes, to make sure it is not misleading in any way, in a music review. I just don't get it!!!! n
Am I the only one who knows that the Arabic word for black is "kaffir" it's a huge insult, the Arabic N-bomb. North African Arabic Muslims can be atrociously racist against blacks, Muslim or not. For example in the recent Libyan war, Gadaffi's mercenaries, often blacks, were subject to incredible atrocities by the locals because they were black. Anyone who thinks that Muslims harbor no ill will towards blacks is delusional or paid to sound delusional.
Best answer is to boycott the NYT.
So, a Islamist nut is worse than a Neo-Nazi nut?
It's sort of like those old M&M peanut and almond commericals–two types of nut dipped in the same swimming pool of brown.
Public television take from Frenchie "expert" interviewed on their evening news: n nthis goes to show how distressed that poor Merah was from his displaced alienation and the deep seated racism of France. n nand illustrates the challenges the Muslims face day to day in an unwelcoming society. n nSo that's all taken care of.
At least I don't have to be subjected to Christianne Amanpour.
clearly this is another tragic example of workplace violence.
Yes, pretty much Muslims are unwelcomed because they are unwelcomeable. (Is that a word or did I just make that up? laughter)
My heart does go out to the good people who fall under the banners of ill-received stereotypes, but, I am also revolted by a biased press. I don't care who's doing what, the point of the press, is so we can know the truth and base our understanding on things that are real. Is that so much to ask?