« German Men Cowed by Talking Toilets | Main | Ward Churchill Does an Endorsement »
February 25, 2005
NY Times Throws a Block for Al Qaeda
Posted by Dave Blount at February 25, 2005 12:48 PM
In the War on Terror, the militant fanatics who are turning the New York Times into a sick parody of a newspaper take ever less care to disguise the fact that they are actually throwing what's left of their weight behind the terrorists. If you thought you had heard it all from the irresponsible, America-hating ideologues who run their editorial page, and that nothing they could say would ever appall you again, check out the editorial in yesterday's edition entitled The Case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali.
Abu Ali is an al Qaeda terrorist born and raised in this country, but arrested in Saudi Arabia. He has been shipped back here and charged with conspiring to kill President Bush and establish an al Qaeda cell in the US. Obviously the folks at the Times are not fans of W. But that hardly justifies sympathizing with vermin like Abu Ali.
The anonymous editorial simultaneously casts aspersions on the War on Terror, and attempts to generate sympathy for Abu Ali, whose arrest before he was able to kill our President is represented as "another demonstration of what has gone wrong in the federal war on terror."
Credence is given to the canard that the poor terrorist was tortured by Saudis on our behalf. The fact that it is the official policy of al Qaeda that all captured terrorists should claim to have been tortured is not mentioned. Neither is the fact that a doctor examined him and could find no evidence to support his tediously predictable torture allegations. Considering that Abu Ali claimed he was getting whipped, evidence wouldn't have been hard to find, if any existed.
"If the Justice Department believed that Mr. Abu Ali was a serious terrorist," the Gray Lady's anonymous author sneers, "he should have been brought back here long ago for trial."
Nah, he isn't a serious terrorist. He was only trying to kill the President. That might qualify as a public service from the point of view of the Times.
But it gets worse:
Instead, he became part of an unknown number of prisoners who were swept up by American officials or foreign governments working with Americans and questioned in the wake of Sept. 11. Many were then held indefinitely and, in some cases, tortured in hopes that they would provide information.
Notice how we're left with the impression that America has been torturing terror suspects, without any evidence or specifics being offered; the allegation is snuck in like drops of arsenic in your coffee. The implication is that America arrests people at random and tortures them on the off chance they might know something in "an undisciplined attempt to wring statements out of any conceivable suspect."
If America were actually run like that, the openly seditious editorial board of the NY Times would be lined up in front of a firing squad in less time than it would take them to lisp "fifth column". But we don't do things that way — as the fact that the Times is free to publish their vile propaganda conclusively proves.
By the way, Abu Ali is not "any conceivable suspect". His background in Islamic extremism goes back to the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Virginia, from which he graduated in 1999. This institution has inspired the hardly rightward-leaning Senator Charles Schumer to write the following in a letter to the Saudi ambassador in Washington:
I ask for your assistance in fully disclosing the nature of this academy — what does it teach, from where does it receive funding, and to what extent it may be serving as a breeding ground for anti-American sentiment — and, possibly, even terrorist activities.
Abu Ali's alma mater is so extreme, it was even taken to task by CAIR for the over-the-top nature of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish rhetoric in textbooks used by first-graders. Abu Ali basically graduated with a degree in Islamofascism — and he graduated valedictorian.
As pointed out on The Jawa Report, Abu Ali taught Islamic studies to children at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center while he was still in high school. This place is known to be a center for jihad-related activities, with connections to al Qaeda prototype The Muslim Brotherhood. Two of the 9/11 hijackers, Hani Hanjour and Nawaf Al Hazmi, "worshiped" there for several weeks in the spring of 2001.
Not that any of this would be relevant to the editorial in yesterday's Times.
Ask yourself this: If the New York Times were secretly owned and operated by Osama bin Laden, so as to be used as a tool to undermine the War on Terror, to defend terrorists, to confuse our citizenry, to eat away at our belief in ourselves and in our right to self-defense, and basically to harm the United States and Western Civilization in general in any way they possibly could, what would they do differently? Anything?
If you can think of something, send your resume to the Times. They might have a spot for you.
In related news, New York City's medical examiner's office is giving up trying to identify more remains from the World Trade Center attack, which means that 1,161 victims of that unconscionable holocaust will probably never have their bodies identified, so that their families can't even have a proper funeral. A total of 9,720 little bits of dead Americans will be freeze-dried in case future technology allows for their identification.
That's what Abu Ali and his friends are striving to do to you and your children: make you into tiny little pieces too small to be identified. By running their local propaganda operations for them, the leftists at the New York Times are providing them with crucial help toward accomplishing this objective. Anyone who finds this incomprehensible must not be intelligent and/or nuanced enough to keep up with the liberal elite.
