Tom Gross, NRO - Last week, in Mumbai, India, we witnessed as clear a case of carefully planned mass terrorism as we are ever likely to see. ......It was a meticulously organized operation aimed exclusively at civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading tourist restaurant, and a Jewish center.
There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff. The terrorists didn’t want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists, and other infidels as they could, and in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed.
So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain’s most respected TV journalists, use the word practitioners when referring to the Mumbai terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors? Why did Reuters describe the motivation of the terrorists, which it preferred to call gunmen, as unknown? Were we meant to suppose that it might have been just anything — that to paraphrase Mark Steyn, they were perhaps disgruntled former employees of Lehman Bros embarking on an exciting midlife career change?
An example below.Again, why did Britain’s highly regarded Channel 4 News state that the militants showed a wanton disregard for race or creed when exactly the opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected.
Why did the “experts” invited to discuss the Mumbai attacks in one show on the state-funded Radio France Internationale, the voice of France around the world, harp on about Baruch Goldstein (who carried out the Hebron shootings in 1994), virtually the sole case of a Jewish terrorist in living memory?
Unfortunately, in recent years we have become used to leftist media burying their heads in the sand about the threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses, in much the same way as they once refused to report accurately on Communist atrocities. But what are we to think when even such a renowned publication as the Times of London feels the need to refer to terrorists as “militants”, rather than calling them by their right name? “Militant”, after all, can be a neutral term in many contexts, and a favorable one in others. What is the motivation of journalists in trying to mangle language? Do they somehow wish to express sympathy for these murderers, or perhaps make their crimes seem almost acceptable? How are we going to effectively confront terrorists when we can’t even identify them as such?
In the entire video, not a single word describing who killed his parents, not even a hint of who they were, what they believed in or where they came from. Not a word about why his Jewish parents in India who did nothing to them were killed. Why were they killed, for what, by whom? All we get is "last week's Mumbai attack which killed both his parents", that's it!
The words 'Islam' or 'Muslim' were not mentioned, even once. Nothing, zilch, zip, about the fact that the evil scum that tortured and killed the people in that Jewish centre were Muslims killing in the name of Islam.
Just like they gave succor to Communism that killed 70+ million people and still do, they give it to another ideology that kills innocent people for whatever depraved, evil reason. Why? Ask yourselves, why?
Hat tip Always on Watch.