This subject has been on my mind for quite some time.
The standard for Media coverage of Muslim attacks on Christians is to gloss over, ignore, or just falsify the motivations behind Islamist attacks on Christians. Whether it is Egypt, Nigeria, or any other nation that has the lethal cocktail of an existing population of innocent Christians and a sizeable amount of Muslims, a media report of an attack will, easily nine times out of ten, leave out the reasons for the act. We almost never get to read about the obvious hatred that too many Muslims have for Christians and Jews or the actual stated reasons of the terrorists themselves.
I have read scores of news articles that chalk up attacks on Christians to "Christian-Muslim strife". This is the most common theme. It reminds one of a man (Or woman) who has treated his or her spouse brutally and goes around stating that "We had a fight". The difference is that, well the abusing spouse can be expected to try to protect himself from legal trouble or a loss of social standing. When Christians are brought into an implicit parity with their assailants by the media, which is supposed to report the facts and refrain from forming opinions for the reading public, a terrible wrong is committed on the reader and, even more so, on the victimized group. A group that lives in fear in their own nation is effectively being libeled when, not having done anything wrong but clinging to their faith and way of life, their attackers receive a free pass of sorts for being just as bad as the victims.
An even more deceitful manner of describing the situation on the ground in such nations is to ascribe the ongoing violence to poverty. The plight of the poor, whether or not that description is accurate for a particular group (Does an austere sheepherder in an undeveloped nation consider himself poor?), is the "go to" theme of the Left. Using the excuse of poverty to justify or mitigate the wrong of a terrorist act is unfair to the victims (Who often are also poor), a denial of historical fact (Poverty does not create violence), and a cheap way for Leftists to push their agenda. It also grossly ignores that fact that nothing is being done to address the problem with Islamic terror.
Despite the gyrations of the Left to persuade people to the contrary, the caloric burning which this entails would make a grossly obese man a 95 pound weakling, the picture is plain; attacks on Muslims by people of other faiths are a tiny fraction of the converse. I cannot think of one nation in which a Muslim population can be honestly referred to as living in a climate of fear. Attacks on Mosques tend to be the work of, for example, Sunnis against Shiites, Muslim women are not being abducted and raped, Christians do not go about rampaging through the streets killing non-Christians (That went away a very long time ago), and Christians have not been known to hijack planes or employ suicide bombers.
Unlike Boko Haram in Nigeria, Christians have not of late ordered Muslims to leave their country.
The social system that Islam creates is far more acceptable to a Leftist than that which is created by Jews or Christians. Both allow for the sovereign nation-state. They do not suppress the free individual, equate freedom with an absolute economic equality (Rich Leftists and Muslims are of course fine), or seek to destroy the ethnic or cultural identities of their people. Islam, being pan-national by nature, is an acceptable stepping stone for a Socialist world. In addition to the obvious advantages for the Left that Islamic immigration provides in the ballot box (Particularly in Europe) , the presence of large populations of Muslims in Western nations means that each country has that many more people who would have no problem at all if national sovereignty was done away with. Since Islam calls for the subjection of the world to its system and Socialists are more concerned with ensuring that you do not get to live in a sovereign nation than they are with their right to go live in a Socialist society, we have two groups that make good allies against us. How would the Left control Islam once their totalitarian society if created? - They will cross that bridge when they come to it. The Left cannot be bothered by petty details. Like one writer described it, the Left is riding on the back of a lion.
When you research Islamic terrorism, odds are you will find more websites, periodicals, and books that are dedicated to persuading you that Muslims do not commit acts of terror in a manner disproportionate to their numbers than you will those that fairly address the issue. You also will have a hard time finding a public school textbook that does not paint the Western world in a bad light and accurately depicts the history of Islamic conquests. Get the idea?
Raymond Ibrahim is the son of Coptic Christian parents. He and his family have experienced the brutality of Islamic hatred in Egypt. He is an extraordinarily good writer. The link to his post, which details the systemic cover-up of the reasons for attacks on Christians by Muslims, is at the top. Below are experts:
"Most recently, for instance, in the context of the well-documented suffering of Christians in Egypt, anNPR report declared "In Egypt, growing tensions between Muslims and Christians have led to sporadic violence [initiated by whom?]. Many Egyptians blame the interreligious strife on hooligans [who?] taking advantage of absent or weak security forces. Others believe it's because of a deep-seated mistrust between Muslims and the minority Christian community [ how did the "mistrust" originate?]." Though the report does highlight cases where Christians are victimized, the tone throughout suggests that examples of Muslims victimized by Christians could just as easily have been found (not true). Even the title of the report is "In Egypt, Christian-Muslim Tension is on the Rise"; the accompanying photo is of a group of angry Christians, one militantly holding a cross aloft—not Muslims destroying crosses, which is what prompts the former to such displays of religious solidarity.
Two more strategies that fall under the MSM's umbrella of obfuscating and minimizing Islam's role—strategies that the reader should become acquainted with—appeared in recent reports dealing with the jihadi group Boko Haram and its ongoing genocide of Nigeria's Christians.
First, some context: Boko Haram, whose full name in Arabic is "Sunnis for Da'wa [Islamization] and Jihad," is a terrorist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the secular government and establishment of Sharia law (sound familiar?). It has been slaughtering Christians for years, with an uptick since last December's Christmas day church bombing, which left 40 Christians dead, followed by its New Year ultimatum that all Christians must evacuate northern regions or die—an ultimatum Boko Haram has been living up to, as hardly a day goes by without a terrorist attack on Christians or churches, most recently, last Sunday's Easter day church attack that killed nearly 50."
Although Boko Haram has been howling its straightforward goals for a decade—enforcing Sharia law and, in conjunction, subjugating if not eliminating Nigeria's Christians—here is the MSM claiming ignorance about these goals (earlier the New York Times described Boko Haram's goals as "senseless"—even as the group continues justifying them on doctrinal grounds). One would have thought that a decade after the jihadi attacks of 9/11—in light of all the subsequent images of Muslims in militant attire shouting distinctly Islamic slogans such as "Allahu Akbar!" and calling for Sharia law and the subjugation of "infidels"—reporters would by now know what their motivation and goals are.
Of course, the media's obfuscation serves a purpose: it leaves the way open for the politically correct, MSM-approved motivations for Muslim violence: "political oppression," "poverty," "frustration," and so forth. From here, one can see why politicians like former U.S. president Bill Clinton cite "poverty" as "what's fueling all this stuff" (a reference to Boko Haram's slaughter of Christians), or the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs insistence that "religion is not driving extremist violence" in Nigeria, which he said in response to last Sunday's Easter day church bombing."
More posts on this subject:
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/10/egypts-christians-under-siege.html
No comments:
Post a Comment