Jihad Watch reader Mike read this post about a New York Times article in which the author, James C. McKinley, Jr., noted that Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before he started on his mass-murder spree, and then said, "Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma."
McKinley did mention the "Allahu akbar," but McKinley ignored the mountain of evidence indicating that Hasan was a jihadist, including Hasan's own PowerPoint presentation delineating Islam's theology of jihad and warning that Muslims should be allowed to opt out of the U.S. military because adverse consequences could ensue if they were made to fight fellow Muslims, and the fact that he passed out Qur'ans on the morning of his mass murders. So Mike wrote this to McKinley at the Times:
J, "The gunman and his motive remain an enigma."I'm not sure I've ever seen a better example of cultural rot than this sentence.
We live in a bizarre age when not only to traitors and jihadis get full rights of American citizens, but more bizarrely people like you continue to turn yourself into a human pretzel to avoid connecting the religion of Islam to the violence it inspired in Hasan's own words and deeds.
You're just another ass hat working at a newspaper gainfully employed to keep people confused.
Harsh? Maybe. But right. And in a magnificent example of the media elite's contempt for the people it continues to try to fool, McKinley responded with this:
Fuck you
Priceless.
McKinley's response to Mike is a two word summary of what his NYT piece would do to an unsuspecting reader i.e. scramble their ability to make sense of what happened, much like the C-in-C and top brass tried to do. At least he was being honest rather than engaging in dissimulation, as per the article.
Classy guy. sarc/
Journalists will only get it when people stop buying their crap. For the record, I have tried emailing criticism, corrections and additional information to Denmark's very own Jyllands-Posten which despite its claim to worldwide fame employs far too many sheep and clueless dhimmis just like any other rag. One journo emailed med back "if you're so smart, why don't you become a journalist yourself?".
Any self-respecting company would have an employee who responded to anyone in such a manner cleaning out his desk that very day.
"Oh! In two hundred years we've gone from "I regret but I have one life to give for my country" to "Fuck you!"?
~Howard Payne (Speed)~
(R.I.P. Dennis Hopper)
I guess McKinley couldn't defend his piece at all so he resorts to a typical leftist retort.
Real classy.
But it does illustrate what sort of moral and intellectual low lives that are employed by the NYT.
As for the NYT, well it just proves it's a paper worthy of only being a birdcage liner.
In my house, that honor goes to the WaPo!
...And in a magnificent example of the media elite's contempt for the people it continues to try to fool, McKinley responded with this:
Fuck you
....................
I have to admit, I'm stunned. I thought McKinley would either—most likely—ignore Mike's post entirely, or else respond with some sort of superficial apologia.
But to respond in this manner is not only ugly and thuggish, but goes far to prove Mike's very points.
"Cultural rot", indeed.
Nobody is that dumb. Nobody is that ignorant. Nobody is that clueless.
The Walter Duranty’s and the James C. McKinley’s from the NYT are sellouts with an agenda, and that agenda is no ours, but that of our (Islamic) enemy.
I say ‘follow the money’…..
“Fuck you”?
I see that the customer is still king in the US.
What is up with honest journalism?
A while ago I wrote an email to a journalist of the New Zealand Herald.
In spite of the statements of the participants themselves and the overwhelming evidence, he wrote a piece about the Gaza Flotilla that had no bearing on the reality whatsoever.
When I pointed this out his reply was;
"Thanks for your feedback. You may be right, but I wrote it as I saw it (and still see it)."
I was going to write back to tell him that I wanted the news, not an opinion piece or his uninformed view of the news.
I did not think it would make a difference....
I cancelled my subscription instead.
At least he was civil.
"Fuck you"
This response indicates that Mike hit a nerve which nearly rendered McKinley speechless. Almost, lol ...
I sent the following to the publisher of the Times:
I was reading Robert Spencers' blog at JihadWatch.org and found a distrubing comment from your reporter, James C. McKinley, Jr. in which he responded to an inquiry with two words, "Fuck you." You should fire your reporter. I shall no longer read your rag of a paper.
Here is a link if your interested:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
kcw
Kenneth Ward
Denver
I realize this may appear off topic. However, with the reported occurrences of persons from countries hostile to the interests of the United States crossing our borders illegally, persons not subject to the scrutiny of the enlisting mechanisms of our armed forces which produce such as Major Nidal Hasan, it becomes even more important to secure our borders.
The following is an open letter to Governor Brewer but most importantly, underscores the significance of secure borders. It is imperative that we understand the gravity of what is befalling us as a nation. France is being warned as consequence of lax immigration. We need to more astutely understand the dangers of illegal immigration and the violation of our borders. Our failure to properly and lawfully administer immigration is the most significant threat we face today.
" Governor Brewer,
You are to be commended for your vigilance and forthright defense of the State of Arizona and the people of the State of Arizona, and your dedication to the principles upon which this nation was founded.
What I do not understand, is why do you not issue a declaration of the Sovereignty of Arizona, and warn of the serious consequence of violating the borders of the State of Arizona? Why do you not enforce as a consequence of that violation, an appropriate defense? You are perfectly within your right to do so, the threat to Arizona and it's citizens being grievous, and of such significance that your people are no longer secure in the enjoyment of their liberties.
You are under attack.
You need neither approval or sanction of the Federal Government, as it has left you to those intruders upon your borders to do as they will, and all manner of evil plagues you.
You are in a state of war, and are not responding as required by the circumstances compelling you to respond appropriately.
I pray for you that you may find the support of your legislature to move boldly and forthrightly, and that you may enjoy the goodwill of the people in your efforts to provide for their security and peaceable enjoyment of the State of Arizona.
You are the civil authority and as such, "do not bear the sword in vain".
Too, you are the victim of an unrighteous ruler. There is little you may do about that, but you can defend your State.
God Bless you.
" No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, "or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay ".
To suggest you declare war is irresponsible.
However, to publish that other than lawful migration into the State of Arizona, the crossing of it's established borders by other than lawful citizens of the State of Arizona or of these United States or of persons by any other right or declaration shall be considered a declaration of war, is not irresponsible. The acts of such persons or groups of persons, open them to the consequences of such violation. Persons resisting the lawful exercise of the authority of the State of Arizona shall be deemed to be in threat of removal,incarceration, or death, such as the circumstances may warrant.
The occurrences of violation of your borders warrant you take action. These terms following, citizen, violation, illegal, undocumented, alien, migrant, are sufficient compelling cause to restrain persons from engaging in known actions that are in opposition to legal, identifiable, lawful actions of citizens of the State of Arizona, or the citizens of these United States, such as we are accustomed to. It is clear you may not detain anyone engaged in lawful activity subjecting yourself to scrutiny, but when an open and unmistakeable violation of lawful restraint occurs, than such persons engaging, shall be immediately subject to the scrutiny of the arresting authority.
By rule of urgency and imminence, you do not need to concern yourself with Federally administered immigration policy or deliver up to authorities other than the lawfully established authorities of the State of Arizona, persons in violation of such policies adhered to by the State of Arizona. The threat of adverse effects in the delay of deportation of violators of the United States immigration policy is sufficient to warrant their immediate removal to their country of origin, or immediate authority of neighboring jurisdiction from which they have issued. In all cases you should retain to the State of Arizona, the right to remove from the United States any person so detained within your State of Arizona, without consultation or advise of any other State, or of the Federal Government, or any other authority, when such persons have been determined to be, in respect to lawful immigration, unlawful, illegal, or in violation of any law of immigration of lawful right, unable to exercise privileges of citizens of the United States or the State of Arizona.
Country of origin shall be understood to mean but not limited to, the country of origin or heritage, or place of birth, of the person so detained. Neighboring jurisdiction is meant to be understood the country of Mexico and it's jurisdictions.
The circumstances faced by Arizona are those which have an effect of liability to adjoining States or of the United States, such as may be affected by the intrusion of other than lawfully sanctioned persons.
I am not an attorney, nor is the above to be considered as a practice of law. It is a sincerely held opinion of belief by the undersigned and thought to be appropriately administered only in conformance with the lawful declaration of a legally constituted authority of which Arizona, it's people, and it's public officers have such right.
Sincerely,
John Galt"
And just when you think modern journalism can't sink any further, it shows you that it can. Fitting that it should be from a New York Times reporter.
Look forward to the day when The New York Times will fold. It will be a great day indeed. Of course, it might not happen, but it's even money that it will happen and even money ain't a bad bet.
Hi Eleanor,
Your blog is labeled as an "attack site". Google warns it may harm your computer.
Details say:
"What is the current listing status for eleanorruth.typepad.com?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 1 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 2 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 2 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-09-23, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-09-23.
Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including richardwolff.com/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS36017 (SIXAPART).
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, eleanorruth.typepad.com did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.
Has this site hosted malware?
No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.
How did this happen?
In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message."
Keep us posted on this, OK?
Mike should both frame this little jewel and put a copy into a time capsule of some sort for documentary evidence of why and when sanity, minimal expectations of civility, and journalism died.
James C. McKinley, Jr. is the bastard son of Walter Duranty......
I cancelled my subscription instead.
I hope you told him about it.
I cancelled my subscription instead.
I hope you told him about it.
Yes, I'm only too well aware of it...as of only two days ago (thanks Google)!
I honestly don't know what's really up with it. I was never informed by anyone that there was a problem, and I only discovered, by accident, this past Friday, that it had been "Blacklisted." The "blacklisting" apparently happened about 9/23, but no one informed me of this. My traffic has dropped by 94% in the past month, and it would appear that ER'sB is about dead in the water.
According to the report, an external site, this Richard Wolff thing, is hosting malware and this malware somehow attacked Google, through TypePad, when they automatically tested a couple of my pages, but strangely, no one else besides Google has been affected, as it states in the report. I've accessed ER'sB regularly from other computers (my sisters, for example) and those computers have never been affected in any way, nor has anyone ever complained.
I'm currently in the dark. My TypePad blog is of the "free" variety, and right now I'm in the process of trying to find out if I can even "verify ownership" of ER'sB, considering it's a "free" blog. I may not be able to. In that case, bye bye, I guess.
If I have to shut it down, I may replace it with an actual, full service website. I've been thinking about doing that anyway.
One thing I can say for sure is that I am not intentionally hosting malware on there, and if there is malware on there, it's coming from someone and somewhere that has outclassed me by ten miles, technically, and infected it somehow.
I've run ER'sB through several malware-testing sites this weekend, and it's come up "clean" every single time.
The report notes that ER'sB is not hosting malware, nor has it infected anyone with malware, but due to that test, it is listed as "suspicious."
In fairness, I think Google, or TypePad especially, ought to inform their bloggers when something like this happens. If I hadn't searched for something of mine, on Google, I wouldn't have know about it at all. As it is now, I'm about a month behind.
If anyone reading this knows more, or has had a similar experience, please let me know if there's anything special I need to do? Is this common? Uncommon? Rare?
I have some rather "acidically satirical" content on there that I could easily see "offending" someone or other.
A friend of mine said he thought it might actually have something to do with the content, and I'm not 100% sure that it doesn't, but I'm resolved to just take it step by step to see if I can get whatever it is cleared up.
I wasn't going to make a general announcement about it here on JW because it's such a small-potatoes little blog, but it's probably best that folks know what's going on, and especially so if it does turn out to be a "content" related issue.
I'll keep you up to date!
~Eleanor
Eleanor, I had to be nosy and check your website...no problems, but when I tried to go to some links you had posted, that's when the warning showed up. But, my McAfee over in the corner stayed green the whole time....so I proceeded to the links anyways...personally, I think your site has been hacked by people unhappy with your slant, who put that on there to scare people away....good luck whatever you decide to do...
Hi carol mcl!
So, how exactly would they do that, do you know? Is it through the links? How else would they get in? Can they get in any other way besides hijacking links?
I wonder if I just skip doing links if I'd be safer. I only started adding links when I started experimenting with different types of posts.
Thanks for replying, btw, I appreciate it. I'm rather a pathetically low-tech kinda gal!
~El
Oh and BTW, WHICH links? I'm trying some out and haven't gotten any warnings (I'm not signed in).
I like the human pretzel comparison. "Fuck you" is clearly an overreaction. "Eat me" would have been an appropriate. Turning a bad journalist into a human pretzel is a benign act of compassion for us readers.
" Fuck You "...
What a rebuttal ! Poor, politically correct Mckinley Jr., got called on the carpet for his idiocy.
His ego is bigger then the truth. He takes Mikes precision analysis as a personal attack, and there is nothing that he can say to rebut him..
He would have been better off not responding at all. What a child !
Come on people, po' li'l Jimmy is frustrated because, after all these years and all these efforts, he hasn't gotten his Pulitzer. So when he's called out for his willful ignorance about the motives of mass murderer Hasan, he lets his frustration show. Have a little sympathy. ;)
I think canceling our subscriptions preceded by a note to the rag stating why, and then looking at other Islam-funded media like The Discovery Channel, and also Hasbro Toys, would send a message where it's most relevant-their purses.
Motive is a factor in an investigation and may - may - suit and argument against an accused.
"Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma."
Surely, by this time, 2010 CE, the purpose behind Hassan's action was to; kill - murder - slaughter infidels.
Just like the NY Times; obfuscates facts, misleads it readership and distorts witnessed details.
What's the fuss? Are we supposed to go back and find Freudian excuses or Dr. Spock "How to raise..." articles?
Motive? He wanted to be a Shaheed, but instead ended up the Larry Flynt of murderous living Jihadis. That reporter shouldn't work for the local community free paper, let alone the NYT.
I thought Mike was rather polite to McKinley. This piece of work (McKinley) should realize that this type of misinformation is helping to get people killed and is helping in the downfall of America as we know it. At the least, he should of studied on what he was writing about.
Since this is still a free nation, thanks Mike and Fuck You McKinley!