How biased is the liberal media? No more or less biased than Barack Obama. Both have made it a matter of policy not to mention “Islam” in connection with “terrorism,” and to look resolutely the other way when Islamic jihadists justify their actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings.
So millions of Americans are completely clueless about the nature of the threat we’re facing—understandably, since they simply never have been told. A case in point of how this deceptive game works comes in a Sunday Reuters story about two Islamic jihadists who were arrested at JFK Airport on their way to Somalia to join the jihad there.
This story is not a particularly egregious example of media bias. In fact, it’s fairly straightforward (not to say remotely objective), but it reflects what passes for acceptable practices among “journalists” these days.
What details does Reuters think are the most salient details in this case? We learn that the people arrested are “men,” and that they’re “unmarried American citizens” and “residents of New Jersey.” They were planning to join a “militant group” in Somalia, one that Reuters describe as a “youth movement”—you know, like the Boy Scouts with beheadings.
Reuters adds that the arrests had something to do with the men’s “social circle.” It’s unclear what they meant by this. Were these men part of a criminal gang? Or did they plot murder and mayhem at the local mosque, as so many other Muslims have done around the world over the last few years? And if the latter, what interest does Reuters have in making them sound like a bunch of guys playing basketball instead of a band of murderous Islamic supremacists that they are?
Reuters names two “militant groups:” al Qaeda as well as that “youth movement,” Al-Shabaab. Most Americans have never heard of the latter, and Muslim spokesmen are working hard to make them think that the former has nothing to do with Islam. Yet Reuters itself suggests, at least to the informed reader, that these two “men” do have something to do with Islam, since they mention the Times Square attempted car bombing (although Reuters describes it in the passive voice, as if the car bomb just suddenly and inexplicably materialized) and the attempted Christmas underwear bombing on a plane in Detroit (which Reuters informs us was carried out by a “Nigerian”).
What do the Times Square and Christmas plots have in common with these two arrests?
Why, something that is named in this article: Islam. The Islamic jihad doctrine. Islamic supremacism. The Times Square car bomber, Faisal Shahzad, was an Islamic jihadist who trained in Pakistan and had ties to the Pakistani Taliban. Jihadist groups in Pakistan, as elsewhere, appeal to peaceful Muslims by playing on their Islamic loyalties, and claim for themselves the mantle of Islamic purity and authenticity. Shahzad and Umar Farouk Abudulmutallab, the Christmas underwear bomber, have only one thing in common: a fervent commitment to Islam, and to the idea that Muslims have a religious responsibility to wage war against Infidels and ultimately subjugate them as inferiors under the political and societal rule of Islamic law.
But even though Islam is the real motivator of these two unmarried male American citizens from New Jersey, and even though Reuters knows that full well or it wouldn’t have tagged on mention of the Times Square and Christmas plots at the end of this article, Reuters doesn’t see fit to mention Islam or jihad. Instead, it gives us the impression that unmarried males who live in New Jersey are a terror threat that law enforcement profilers (that is, if profiling weren’t so politically incorrect) ought to be focusing upon.
The absurdity of this is obvious, but we take it for granted, since it crops up again in every news story from every news agency about every Islamic jihad plot anywhere in the world.
It’s as if we were trying to fight World War II without ever mentioning Germans or Japanese. “Men with Militant Ties Bomb Pearl Harbor.” “Residents of Auschwitz with Ties to Militant Group Murder Millions of Jews.”
Do you think we would have won that war with coverage like that?