A jihadi was widely reported — not just in the New York Times — as telling a woman in the Charlie Hebdo offices that she should convert to Islam, read the Qur’an, and wear a veil. The New York Times reported that as well. But now those references are gone from the Times. Apparently the Times editors are desperately concerned that Americans might get a negative view of Islam, and are doing all they can to prevent that.
More on this story. “WOW: New York Times caught scrubbing details about Paris terrorist attack,” by Joshua Riddle, Young Conservatives, January 9, 2015:
This is why the mainstream media CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
So many people rely on the New York Times are their only source of news. I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Journalists for the NYTDie-hard liberals will change tiny details about stories that are mostly factual to push their narratives.Here is a before and after from a story about the terrorist attack in Paris.
They scrubbed a report on the terrorist proselytizing during Charlie Hebdo attack.
Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.
Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.
Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.
Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.
“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”
noellsq says
True journalism by this biased rag.
mortimer says
Right (sarc on). NYT supports the ‘officially designated victim’ narrative of cultural Marxism. Muslims are ODVs who may never be criticized because of their ‘protected’ status.
Matthieu Baudin says
Mortimer, is ‘cultural marxism’ in your usage a substitute term for ‘postmodernism’?
your friend clem says
the post Frankfurt school post modern cultural marxists love their word salad,.
ever heard of affirmative action?
Angemon says
New York Times, New York Times… That name rings a bell. Oh wait, I’ve got it. It used to be a newspaper, right?
Sam Hawkins says
When I read the NYT article, it said that Ms. Vinson had said in an interview that she had been misquoted (“convert/veil/koran”) and that in fact the terr had said what is now in the article.
It’s possible.News reporting in a fluid situation often turns out to contain mistakes that are corrected later.
I’m much more upset about the craven cowardice of the NYT in refusing to reprint Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons lampooning Islam and their so-called prophet. The sooner they go bankrupt the better.
Ross says
They will never go bankrupt because they are subsidized by the Elite, as is MSNBC and others. It’s a New World Order at any cost.
thomas pellow says
About ‘NYT-
“Thoughts on the Stockholm Syndrome”
http://galliawatch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/thoughts-on-stockholm-syndrome.html
dsinc says
Wishing the New York Times a speedy demise. Please close the door on your way out.
Ross says
I know too many people who still believe the NYT is a legitimate rag. They are smart people but they don’t rely on many other sources so they don’t realize how much the NYT omits, because other sources have been demonized by their idols.
Some are so invested in their Liberal Gods that they will not admit truth even when they hear it come directly from the mouths of those who are guilty of deceiving us.
Logic courses need to be required of all students so they can have a better understanding of how our “leaders” manipulate information.
Darren says
Try commenting on the NYT comments section in articles, it’s impossible to get past the Great Fire Wall of the New York Times. I was thinking of trying Morse code next to try getting past the great fire wall of the new york times comments section. Their censorship would make Stalin blush.
Arjuna Krishna-Das says
Winston Smith would have been proud.
Winston Smith says
What do you mean “WOULD have been proud?”
I, Winston Smith, am proud to be working for the New York Times as “Manager, User Trust and Education” (MUTE).
Salah says
Traitors are extremely more dangerous than the enemy itself.
Our PC elites, academia, msm, etc. are more lethal than Islam itself. They are the enemy from within.
Traitors should be removed from power, face justice and, if convicted of high treason, executed.
Jaladhi says
NYTimes editors are so grotesquely dishonest and liars that one can’t imagine these guys will stoop so low and still call themselves “journalists”. Is there any difference between NYTimes and Soviet age Parvada and Izvestia?? Imagine what the followers of NYTimes are like!! This country is doomed!!1
Dracula says
The media’s capacity to act as the gatekeeper of information is frequently touted by the education system to be a means by which it discerns what stories have no basis in reality and what data merits public attention.
I’ve always felt even since I was a child in school that it’s nothing other than blunt, crass instrument to control popular opinion and facilitate an agenda.
Liam1304 says
General Ion Pacepa – the highest ranking Communist to defect to the West – in his book “Disinformation” states that the New York Times was originally a small paper that was bought out by the Communists in order to disseminate Communist propaganda and “disinformation”.
It would seem they are still doing this.
katnis says
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire
Concerned Citizen says
I am sorry for changing the subject slightly, but in reading this article on how media is censoring, I come across advertisements on the right hand side of the Jihad Watch webpage which show the young face of a pretty Causcasian girl and the words “The Most Surprising Facts about Islam” “Myths Busted”
When I followed the link out it lands up a New Yorker Sept 11, 2006 issue with an article written by George Packer about a “The Moderate Martyr – a radically peaceful version of Islam” The purpose of the article is to portray a gentle kind Islam and quoting…
One day, Osman took a book by Taha off her father’s shelf, “The Koran, Mustapha Mahmoud, and Modern Understanding,” published in 1970. By the time she finished it, she was weeping. For the first time, she felt that religion had accorded her fully equal status. “Inside this thinking, I’m a human being,” she said. “Outside this thinking, I’m not.” It was as if she had been asleep all her life and had suddenly woken up: the air, the taste of water, food, even the smell of things changed. She felt as if she were walking a little off the ground.
end quote.
Do you find it a bit disconcerting that a “myths busted” moderate version of Islam is being presented the same time that we are reading about the murders which just occurred at Charlie Hebdo on the same website. A second advertisement states “Inconvenient Facts about Muslims you need to know”
I post this as a heads up to Robert Spencer. Is his message being countermanded?
RonaldB says
“I post this as a heads up to Robert Spencer. Is his message being countermanded?”
I personally wouldn’t worry too much about Robert’s “message being countermanded”. You’re making the assumption that readers blindly follow whatever opinion they read last, so having a different opinion accessible through a link found at Jihad Watch is counterproductive to the purpose of the website.
In point of fact, the articles and opinions of Robert are factual, and stem from a deep knowledge of Islam and it’s effects. Hopefully, readers at Jihad Watch come for education and knowledge, rather than just dropping in to get the latest opinion they should parrot. In other words, once they get enough information and logic through reading Jihad Watch, they are perfectly capable of judging for themselves the validity of a fluff-piece on Islam purporting to show the “eureka” experience of a girl who finally found a religion (Islam) that treated women as completely equal to men. If you don’t have the tools to see through that on your own, … well, you get my point.
Mashal says
thank you for creating an amazing website of lies and narrow minded ideas
I learnt much from you and I became more muslim than before. now your website is a reference of propagnda to my friends and students.
actuly we matched some these so called ideas with the arabic sources, we founded that you quote out of context. I learnt from your site so I aperciate you. as Ali peace be up on him says when you learn from some one respect him and take him as your teacher.
Angemon says
Mashal posted:
“thank you for creating an amazing website of lies and narrow minded ideas”
WEll, RS does quote from islamic sources…
“actuly we matched some these so called ideas with the arabic sources, we founded that you quote out of context.”
And Mashal never actually explains when this alleged “taking out of context” happens, or how they would look in context… This is classical islamic apologetics – if something in the quran makes islam or muhammad look bad then it’s “taken out of context”. If an hadith makes muhammad look bad like, for example, marrying a six-year-old (according to the arab moon calendar, which is shorter than our sun-based calendar) then “it was normal back then”.
Just a vanilla apologist, nothing to see here.
RonaldB says
“thank you for creating an amazing website of lies and narrow minded ideas
I learnt much from you and I became more muslim than before. ”
Actually, Mashal, your reaction is well-described in psychological literature as “cognitive dissonance”, as developed by Leon Festinger. It describes the dynamics of a fringe, fanatic group (think of mainstream Islam), which holds beliefs counter to any known facts or intuition (again, think of mainstream Islam).
When information comes out which shows the predictions and teachings of the group to be fallacious, there are two possible reactions, both subconsciously designed to relieve the cognitive dissonance of adhering to contradictory beliefs. Some people accept the facts, and leave the group and it’s irrational beliefs. Others reject the facts, and increase the intensity of their belief and commitment. In both cases, the group member has rejected one or the other contradictory belief.
It’s easy to see which group you belong to.
media watching says
This website Jihadwatch should have a Media Watch type section where you can break down the hypocrisy and lies and deception from the media.
I found this article as an example.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/world/days-of-sirens-fear-and-blood-france-is-turned-upside-down.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
So apparently according to this article the real enemy of France is the National Front…a party that wants to limit Islamic immigration is the supposed enemy, yet they have done nothing violent – they haven’t attacked a mosque, they haven’t killed anyone, but somehow we have to fear the National Front and not Islamic extremists. If we all just accept the status quo and turn the other way it will all work out well according to this writer.
Albion Land says
I am disappointed that you, or your source, chose to delete these words, which were included in the NYT article. It does your credibility no good:
“She disputed a quotation attributed to her and carried on the website of the French radio service RFI stating that the gunman had told her she should convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover herself.”
I see three possibilities here: RFI lied, or got it wrong, or she is backtracking.
I am no lover of the NYT, but I see no evidence here of wrongdoing on their part.
DiMu says
Violent jihad is such an embarrassment to the liberal left. Non-Western cultures have been held up as better than ours for decades now. We are the perpetrators of violence not them. They are always victims.
Well, that thin argument is now utterly threadbare. Christians and Jews are being murdered out of existence by people who worship a god no better than the heart-eating god of the Aztecs, or the gods of cannibals. They are an anachronism, a return of the Black Death on the backs of their rats, (Apologies to rats).
It’s time for us to call the Pest Man!
Shaun says
Muslims believe that the Koran is the perfect word of their god, Allah. The word of Allah cannot be wrong. It cannot be altered. It cannot be added to or subtracted from and no part of it can be denied.
Being the word of Allah, the Koran is Islam’s primary founding document. The word of their god has precedence over everything else. There is no higher source for what Islam requires of Muslims.
Moderate Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace. They say that Muslim terrorists practice a distorted version of the religion and that there is no justification in Islam for terrorist acts. But, through the Koran, Islam tells Muslims to make war in order to spread Islam. Islam tells Muslims to hate, subjugate and kill non-Muslims and to not take any of them as friends. Islam tells Muslims to exterminate the Jews. Islam tells Muslim men that they can rape their wives and female slaves. Islam says that women are inherently inferior to men and that gays and apostates are to be killed.
Those claims by the moderates are refuted by nothing less than the Koran itself. The perfect word of their god shows that Islam is not a religion of peace, that Muslim terrorists are not following a distorted version of the religion and that there is an abundance of justification in Islam for terrorist acts.
Muslim terrorists are often called extremists. They are not extremists. They haven’t selected a few barbaric Koran passages and discounted the far greater civilised number; they couldn’t have. The civilised passages of the Koran are few and are reduced to insignificance by the far greater number of barbaric ones.
Those “extremists” are, in fact, genuine Muslims following the letter and spirit of the Koran, Allah’s perfect word. They are doing what Islam tells them to do. The horrors perpetrated by certain Muslim groups are extreme by civilised standards but those horrors are justified by Islam when dealing with enemies of Islam. Muslims are told by the god of Islam to hate and kill. Extremism isn’t the problem. Islam is the problem.
Many Muslims condemn the acts of Muslim terrorists but there they stop; they don’t continue on to condemn the Koran passages which are used as justification. Instead, they pretend that the terrorists are “un-Islamic” and that there is no support in Islam for terrorist acts. They present a civilised Islamic facade to the world, a false front, a mask which hides the true nature of Islam. They play their part in non-Muslims being deceived and led to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are following a distorted version of it. But Islam is not a religion of peace. The Koran tells Muslims to hate and kill. And the terrorists are not following a distorted version of the religion. The terrorists are genuine Muslims who are being true to Islam.
If any Muslims are following a distorted version of Islam, it’s the moderates. If any Muslims have selected a few Koran passages to follow and have ignored the bulk of the book, it’s the moderates. If any Muslims are being deceitful about the content of the Koran and Islam’s goal to be the only religion world-wide and followed by everyone, it’s the moderates.
The moderates give Islam a way into civilised countries by misrepresenting it and are a far greater threat to civilisation than the terrorists. They are knowingly aided and abetted by western politicians, the media, royalty and other traitors who call Islam a religion of peace, who say that there is nothing in Islam to justify the acts of terrorists, who won’t tell their people what Islam’s instructions to Muslims really are and who won’t take a stand to protect their people against the ever-growing problems caused by Islam.
But don’t take anyone’s word for it.
Know your enemy. Read the Koran.