Look at the AFP headline: "Gunmen kill 16 Shiite Muslims in Pakistan: officials." Note how the mainstream media readily identifies the victims as Muslims, but not the perpetrators, even though they were just as Muslim as their victims, and were killing them at least in part because they regarded them as Rafidite dogs, heretics from the true Islam.
In the story also, the victims are again identified as "Shi'ite Muslims" and the violence described as "sectarian," but the aggressors are identified only obliquely. Since the violence is "sectarian" and "the incident took place...in the Sunni dominated Charkhel area," we can surmise that the murderers were "Sunni Muslims," but they're never identified as such.
This is of a piece with the mainstream media's general tendency to whitewash violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Muslims can only be victims. When they kill, they're not Muslims anymore, they're just "gunmen."
"Gunmen kill 16 Shiite Muslims in Pakistan: officials," from AFP, July 17:
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AFP) - Sixteen Shiite Muslims were killed and four wounded Saturday in an apparent sectarian ambush in a remote tribal town in northwest Pakistan, a paramilitary spokesman and local officials said.The incident took place early Saturday in the Sunni dominated Charkhel area on Tal-Parachinar road in the violence-hit Kurram tribal district, close to the Afghan border.
The victims were heading to Peshawar in two passenger vehicles when unidentified attackers ambushed them in a hail of gunfire, officials said.
Major Fazal-Ur-Rehman, a spokesman for the paramilitary Frontier Corps, confirmed the attack.
Local administrative and intelligence officials also confirmed the incident and said that all those killed were Shiite Muslims....
Somebody really needs to explain to the media that there's a definite difference between Shi'ite and Shinola.
Thing is, they don't know what either happens to be.
They just know one thing: Dhimmitude, submission, appeasement, capitulation and complicity............ Oh wait, that was more than one thing.
;-)
Cheers !
Kenny Solomon
Senior Expediter
The 72 Virgins Club Travel Agency
Offices throughout all 57 states.
Muslims are always victims. Never offenders or perpetrators, but victims only.
It has become embedded in every muslim that right from early days of islam they were abused and persecuted, and when an accusing finger points to the violent verses of the Quran a choir of uncomprehending resentment immediately rises: "but it must be seen in context, we were abused!!"
I looked that up once, and I discovered that a woman who belonged to the early Meccan followers of Muhammad died from what we perhaps would call "stress related factors". And he himself once had dirt thrown at him from a rooftop, barely surviveable but he managed.
Nothing near the assassinations, torture and genocide he inflicted upon others.
Discussions - be it Facebook or Amazon - always lead to that weary old horse "abuse! abuse!", and as I said: it has become engrained that muslims are only victims and only to be called victims even when hurt by other muslims, right in the face of factual evidence and the lessons of history. They have become programmed that way, you might almost say.
Allah does not discriminate when it comes to killing humans...He's such a joker...
Robert Spencer is eminently correct here. Words mean things and the MSM does a lot of wordplaying. The only real debate is whether this wordplaying is done consciously or unconsciously. Most in the MSM have been so spoon-fed liberal PC/MC syrup that that PC/MC articles may be written by many who don't even realize much of the time how slanted their articles are. As Bernie Goldberg has pointed out, liberals think in terms of their being simply rational and fair, as opposed to those nasty conservatives who are the biased ones. But irrespective of conscious or unconscious writing that incorporates PC/MC views, this still leaves the journalist culpable for unbalanced articles. After all, one knows or should know certain things (like the inherent call for violence and intolerance that resides in Islamic doctrine) and then proceed from there.
Good point, Steffen Larsen,
I think that many people, both Muslims AND apologists for, or supporters of, Muslims have this attitude.
I think that before people start blaming and excuse people they should consider whether the ones that are excused are SANE ADULT HUMANS or not.
It is evident that feeble-minded humans, children or animals are not to be blamed for much of anything since they have no free will.
Only sane adult HUMANS can be blamed. So I like these excusers to consider very well if Muslims are or are not as sane, adult and human as the people they blame, mostly Jews, Westerners and Indians. Only if that is firmly established we can proceed to talk about the morality in the motivation of their deeds or lack thereof.
I think that many Muslim-defending Westerners really have a condescending attitude towards Muslims and I think Robert Spencer et al respect them much more by holding them responsible as the sane adult humans that many of them are.
To quote Hogan's Heroes Shultz."I see nuthink!I know nuthink!Nuthink I tell you!Nuthink!
Probably going to sound controversial giving the trouble were having with Iran, but does anybody else think that once we get the Ayatollah's out of the way the Iranian Shia's can be enlisted as strong allies against Sunni Islamism? For one they seem more shrewd than the Sunni's, and if the Iranian regime was toppled and they became a secular minority instead of a theocratic minority they might look to the west for allies.
Sunni Muslims ambush, murder 16 Shi'ite Muslims in Pakistan
.................
The other day, on a thread about the recent murderous suicide attacks by Sunnis on a Shi'ite mosque in Iran, a poster opined that was it possible that the US was involved—a sort of below the radar strike at our enemy Iran.
I said I thought it was damned unlikely—we don't get involved in the deliberate murder of civilians, and Sunnis and Shi'ites have been killing each other for almost 1,400 years, in any case.
And now there is this story. Are we to believe that the United States is backing Sunnis killing Shi'ites in what is—nominally, at any rate–a country that is a US ally?
I think not. They have plenty of impetus to murder in the name of their baleful creed without any outside urging whatsoever.
backing either one in their eternal shitte/ sunni fraticide fight is useless, pointless, and a lose lose situation.
isn't here better news like what is lady gaga wearing or the you tube video of a singing dog?
Don't forget - we played both sides in the Iran/Iraq war in order to keep both sides weak. Can't say what would have happened had we not meddled, but see where we are since we have? So why wouldn't we try again.