Nearly a week after the beginning of the deadly siege in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) India, The New York Times still can’t say the M-word (Muslim) or the I-word (Islam).
In a December 3 story on the attacks which left 174 dead, The Times informed readers that: 1. It’s believed “militants” inside Pakistan directed the “terrorists.” 2. There seems to be little doubt that the slaughter is the work of the Pakistani “militant” group Lashkar-e-Taiba. and 3. Bush administration officials issued stern warnings to the government of Pakistan to crack down on “militant” groups.
“Militant groups” – what are they militant about? “Terrorists” – terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. What motivates the savages who perpetrated the horror in Mumbai? “Gun men” – why would a man shoot women and children at point-blank range?
You won’t find the answers in the pages of The New York Times. The paper where the news is filtered to fit an agenda refuses to call the terrorists what they manifestly are – militant Muslims, extremists who torture and kill in the name of Islam.
It wasn’t until the 19th paragraph of the December 3 story that we learned the terrorists called on an Indian television station to broadcast their complaints about the treatment of Indian Muslims.
That was the only hint of a sectarian motivation for the torture slayings at Mumbai’s Chabad house, the city’s center of Jewish activity. Now, let’s see, who hates Jews more than anyone else? Not coincidentally, from Riyadh to Islamabad, the world’s most vicious anti-Semites happen to be Muslims.
The Times has decreed that in reports on terrorist incidents, the M-word and the I-word can only be used when quoting the terrorists themselves.
Thus The Times goes merrily on its knee-jerk way blathering about “militants,” “extremists” and “assailants,” while denying the reality of the cause for which they kill. It would be akin to discussing German atrocities during World War II without using words like “national socialism,” “fascism” or “Nazis.”