How The Media Whitewashes Islamic Terrorism

It seems that every instance of Muslim riots, violence and attacks around the world in the past week is labelled as a reaction to the B-rate video dubbed (literally) “The Innocence of Muslims”. Although it is reasonable to believe last week’s riots around the Egyptian embassy in Cairo is a response to that (as well as other protests near foreign embassies in Muslim countries), you have to be a real jerk to use the film as a pretext for terrorist attacks.

Well, the mainstream media are jerks.

The attack on the American consulate in Benghazi which killed ambassador Stevens and three other Americans was a preplanned assault with RPG’s, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. But unlike previous attacks against US targets on 9/11 – like in 2006 and 2011, or foiled attacks like last year and in 2009 - this time the media was all too happy to find a pretext for these attacks, other than genocidal Islamic terrorism, and that’s where the “Innocence of Muslims” comes in to play.

Today, a week after the film gained notoriety, Muslims are “innocent” as the media still blames the movie for yet another devastating Islamic terrorist attack in Afghanistan, like the hundreds of attacks by the Taliban:

Suicide attack kills 13 in Kabul

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) – Suicide bombers struck at targets in Kabul and Afghanistan’s eastern Kunar province on Tuesday, killing 13 people and wounding 15 others, including three NATO soldiers, Afghan officials said.

Taliban groups took responsibility for both attacks.

In the first one, a 22-year-old woman named Fatima drove a car packed with 660 pounds (300 kilograms) of explosives into a van on a road leading to Kabul International Airport, according to Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, a group allied with the Taliban that took responsibility for the attack.

The blast killed 12 people and wounded 11 others, government officials said.

Video footage of the aftermath showed a charred vehicle smoldering on the road as military officials milled about the blast site.

Eight of the dead were South Africans, a government spokesman confirmed, all working for an international flight provider, some of them as pilots.

Three of the dead were Afghan civilians, and another was a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s office said.

Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin said the attack was revenge for an anti-Islam film that has angered the Muslim world.

No, it’s not. The mainstream media is whitewashing Islamic terrorism. By applying a false pretext for such attacks, careless and carefree reporters are kindling the fire that is Islamic apologism, instead of telling the story as it really is. Then again, the same media was all too happy to publish an unsubstantiated antisemitic lie about the film, so we can’t really expect much.

Then there’s Al Arabiya’s motley crew of apologists.

There’s one titled: Before screaming… a quiet look at the beneficiaries from the seditious film, where the author blames everyone and everything, including the Republicans and Israel. Even when confronting Islamic extremism, he can’t go one paragraph without mentioning Christian and Jewish “extremes” like the Tea Party and Netanyahu. Topping it off, he tries to limit free speech by requesting “a set of U.N.-sponsored legislations that consider deriding one religion an insult to all religions, and subsequently bans insulting Islam and Muslims by law”… But you can’t have a good op-ed without Godwin’s law… “as is the case of questioning the Holocaust. ”

Another op-ed titled: May the person who ignited it be cursed by Allah, repeats the same antisemitic lie:

Another important note is that this so-called movie has been filmed over a year ago, with estimated costs of $5 million, which were collected, according to the U.S. media reports, from about one hundred Jewish contributors.

A third op-ed finishes in a salvo of open questions:

However it is deemed worthy to examine the severe anger in guiding masses against a trivial and petty movie both in form and content! Are the Islamic biography and history that vulnerable?

But most importantly, is this type of violence and protest in favor of Islam and Muslims? Or does it show that a ball of anger can be violently mobilized against any trivial and disgusting cartoon?

Newsflash! Trivial and disgusting cartoons are a staple of Arab consumption, yet you don’t see hordes of Christians and Jews storming embassies.

Another is equating the free speech of questioning a religion with the questioning of the Holocaust, and repeating, once again, that the film “ is the result of collaboration between an Israeli director, an American producer, and extremist Copts.”

And the last one that I noted, says it’s all part of a worldwide Zionist plot:

Netanyahu’s Israel, of course, is the greatest beneficiary of all this. Whether the film is a Mossad operation or not is beside the point, and such a claim cannot be made on the basis of conjecture, but tangible, solid information.

About Judge Dan

Dan Smith has been exposing anti-Israel fallacies since the first time he opened the world wide web on Netscape Navigator, sometime in the late 90's. His lack of formal journalistic, political and sociological education means he is still capable of objective, unbiased views and opinions. A judge of media, pundits and media pundits.

comments

  • E Pluribus Beagle

    Even this soft sells it. Western media borders on approval. In between literally blaming it on Mitt Romney and Israel.

    • mzk

      You left out the main component selling the line – the Obama admisitration. Of course, the MSM and Obama are one.

      Meanwhile, the latest “scandal” is that Mitt Romney was caught in a secret meeting showing that he actually understands the Middle East. Of course, very few people will get a clear shot at finding out the extremely rational things he actually said. If anything, he soft-pedaled it.

      If I was on the fence, this would give him my vote.

  • Hundra the Warrior Woman

    Last night on the “Religion of Peace” website there was a disgusting article titled, “Muslims in Nigeria Crucify Cat to Protest Anti-Islam Film…..! The back legs of the cat is tied with rope to the verticle post, and the front legs nailed to the horizontal post. This poor innocent cat is still alive I think, because its little head is up. Now, tell me, was this innocent creature a Jewish cat, a Copt? An American? These people are the animals not the innocent cat, nor the American Ambassador and his staff. They’re damned lucky I wasn’t there to witness this, nothing pisses me off more than animal cruelty. It’s about time Australia stopped live animal exports to the Middle East and Indonesia! Muslims are savages!

  • walt kovacs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz3fU3V7dIs&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLZvK6TiYctMffZokb-I9tuQ

    the animals run amok in antwerp

    note the flag the cute, little muzzie, girls are waving

  • mzk

    This is all explained in the latest LATMA. Professor Mavina (as in “mayven”) Shwartz explains that modern historians are “post-chronological”; the order in which things happen does not matter.

    So one thousand years of Muslim violence is explained by the film, and one thousand years of Muslim anti-semitism is explained by the settlements. (I suppose one thousand five hundred years of Christian attacks on Jews ar eexplained by the presence of Jews among Comunist revolutionaries. Actually, classic historians really were like this, for example assuming without evidence that the Jews of ancient Alexandria were money-lenders.)