Pages: 1 2
Time Magazine has published a classic example of the Islamic supremacist attempt to position Muslims as victims and deflect attention away from the global jihad. This effort has, of course, gained a new impetus from the Norway murders, which the Left and their Islamic supremacist allies are using as a pretext to discredit all resistance to jihad activity of any kind. The mainstream media as a whole has taken the stance that the anti-jihadists named in the murderer’s manifesto are responsible for the murders, despite the fact that none of us have ever advocated violence or any kind of illegality.
Media bias? Media support for the jihad? What else is new? Is anyone doing anything else these days? Still, I think it important to answer as many as I can of these and show the truth:
“When Slogans Beget Slaughter,” by Ishaan Tharoor, was published by Time Magazine on August 6:
Last year on Sept. 11, I stood at Ground Zero as hundreds of people shouted obscenities against Muslims and Islam.
There were actually many thousands of people there, as photos attest. But however many people were there, were “hundreds of people” really shouting “obscenities against Muslims and Islam”? Absolutely not. In a crowd of that size it is impossible to ensure that everyone is civil and polite, but our speakers set the tone, and none of them indulged in or encouraged any “obscenities” whatsoever. The videos are readily available on YouTube. Tharoor here is defaming not just me, but all the decent people who turned out to protest the desecration that is the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. And his whole argument here depends on this defamatory charge. But I’d like to see him substantiate it.
They were gathered to protest the proposed construction of a Muslim-run interfaith community center nearby, which had earned the inaccurate moniker Ground Zero mosque.
A “Muslim-run interfaith community.” We were actually the ones who suggested that if the Ground Zero Mosque organizers were serious about reaching out to non-Muslims, they could include a synagogue, a church, and a Hindu temple inside their center. This suggestion, like everything we said, was arrogantly brushed aside with more smear charges of “hate” — as Tharoor is charging in this piece.
The rally was conducted by a motley crew of Islamophobes, among them several European visitors. Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has called for a ban on immigration to the Netherlands from Muslim countries, denounced the arrival of a “new Mecca” on the shores of what was once New Amsterdam….
Actually he didn’t say that at all. Watch his speech here. He was actually lauding New York’s tradition of tolerance, and said that if New York were open only to people of one persuasion, it would not be New York, but would be like Mecca.
I mention this because the manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the man behind the massacre in Norway, echoed those calls. Multiculturalism, Marxism, the supposed insensibility of Islam to Western values and the appeasement tendencies of a naive liberal elite: such were the grievances raised separately by both Breivik and the riled-up crowd in lower Manhattan. The writings of Robert Spencer — an organizer of that rally and an anti-Muslim polemicist routinely accused of hate speech — were cited 64 times in Breivik’s manifesto, according to the New York Times. […]
Here the plan becomes obvious. Tharoor is by no means the only one trying to use Breivik’s murders to discredit any and all opposition to “multiculturalism, Marxism, the supposed insensibility of Islam to Western values and the appeasement tendencies of a naive [or complicit] liberal elite.” Sit back and take it as your freedoms are stripped from you, for opposition leads to mass murder. Of course, this is no more true than it would be true to say that Martin Luther King should have stopped opposing institutionalized racism because of the Watts riots.
Pages: 1 2