Blades, Imagine if a tea partier stabbed a congressman here in the states. Imagine if a member of the BNP stabbed an MP over in Jolly Old England. The outrage. The racist racists would be denounced for their racism, lack of diversity, intolerance, and hatred. And their racism. Don't forget the racism. Bunch of biggoted racists, no doubt. But instead a british MP was attacked and stabbed repeatedly by a young Muslim woman, who may or may not have been shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while celebrating her diversity (accounts differ in this regard). Stop the presses! No really, stop them, remove this article, remove all reference to her Islamic religion, her hatred of the west, and so on. Just another ordinary person. Mentally disturbed. Not terrorism at all. SURELY not terrorism. Nothing to see here. MOVE ALONG. And you better not suggest anything not approved by the BBC, because that would make you a racist.
You honestly think if a US congressman or woman was stabbed by a Muslim yelling 'God is great!' that all the mainstream news networks wouldn't have Muslim Extremist Attacks Congress all over their feed? This sounds awful to say but you need to watch more t.v
Erm, what TV are you watching? MSNBC openly lamented that it was a Muslim bombing Times Square. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...rewer-frustrated-times-square-bomber-muslim-0 That video has also been posted here a few times. The US military's own massive report on the Ft. Hood shooting didn't even discuss Hasan's religion (or the fact that his business cards said "Soldier of Allah" or how he had gone on lengthy rants at psychatry conferences about how Muslims must behead the Infidels, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). Eric Holder in recent congressional testimony refused to use the word "Radical Islam" when directly questioned by congressmen, instead trying as hard as he could to avoid the phrase at all and equivocate the matter. The Mayor of New York openly said that he suspected the bomber was "Someone upset with the health care bill." The NYTs has run a multitude of lengthy articles talking about how Shahzad was just misunderstood, his home was in foreclosure, and that's the real culprit here. I could go on. And on. And on. Our media and the liberal-democratic power structure (which are one in the same) do absolutely everything to suppress discussion of Islam releated to terrorism.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Well... Islam can be interpreted and harnessed by some radical individuals to cause violence and destruction, you're absolutely right. An important fact not to be overlooked, however, is that the vast majority of Muslims in America are not extremists and do not support or advocate violent practices. Perhaps certain media outlets try to avoid harping on this connection because if the image of violent Muslims appears whenever one turns on the t.v, simple-minded individuals could make the erroneous assumption that all Muslims are radicals and then proceed to discriminate them socially, perhaps lash out in physical altercations, establish sentiments of 'No Muslims Wanted' in certain establishments etc.
Because its the only argument the left uses anymore. Everything that doesn't submit 100% to the ultra leftist radical agenda is decried as racism.
Yet, the tea parties are crazy because of a couple signs. The militia group that was recently attacked is a "Christan terrorist" organization. The Catholic church is bad because of a few priests. It seems like the rules shift and change depending on thew agenda of the media.
Nevertheless, $ rules all, so when it comes down to it, news networks care more about a titilating story than they do about being PC (unless they think that'll cost them ratings and therefore ad revenue $)
The NYTs, MSNBC, CNN, and all the other major MSM outlets are either functionally bankrupt or rushing towards bankruptcy as fast as they can. They have choosen to NOT make money, and instead push the liberal agenda... instead of making money and reporting the truth. Your argument falls flat. The MSM is more interested in advancing the liberal agenda than in making money.
Talking about the media 24/7 is getting really old. We get it, they suck. Why don't you just pretend they don't exist, put them out of your minds, and get real news from the internet.
who cares that much? i roll my eyes when people talk about racism, yeah it happens, so fucking what. you're on the internet making threads about it and you and others keep doing it every day. it seems like you're compensating for something. the same thing happens with bias. people will get out there and highlight some kind of scripture about leftist media conspiracy while at the same time completely distorting the truth to serve their own message. everyone's biased. who cares that much? someone who is compensating. look at your that post. the only argument? really? that's a bit of an overstatement, the truth often "has a well known liberal bias." (Colbert) Sometimes the left is correct, sometimes the right is. Did you not know that, or did you forget? You pretend like all leftists are uncompromising communist "ultra leftist radicals" and "racists." Those are the words of an absolutist. Someone who is afraid of outside messages. What else explains it? You could just compose your words in a civil tone if you had nothing to fear from a civil discourse.
Well their not doing a very good job at it. And i find it very hard to believe that major corporations that own these media outlets dont put profits first. Just look at the NYT, there going to start charging for their online newspaper. When the media gave the Bush admin. a free pass to the Iraq war, were they more interested in advancing a conservative agenda?
Erm, They managed to get their golden boy the Lord High Messiah Barack Obama elected President, without any qualifications or vetting, except for a track record of radical socialism. Not a bad accomplishment, that. The NYTs is losing money hand-over-fist, and the shareholders are essentially powerless because the Salzburg family owns the majority of preferred shares, giving it total control of the company.
Wait, so the NYTs used their liberal-media-might to get Obama elected but they somehow couldn't do it for Gore in 2000 or even for Kerry in 2004 when everybody knew for sure that Bush was a fuck-up? "Your argument falls flat"
QFT, I lurk this forum and every single post by Elliot is just insulting anyone who is a democrat or liberal. Then he throws in some shit about communism or gays or muslims or abortion just to be inflammatory. Pisses me off.
Threads like this are getting so old. We get it. The media is a group of radical left-wing baby-murdering communist gay muslim greenpeace climate change believers intent on forming a one-world government police state with socialist ideals. And Obama is a communist, don't forget that one. Seriously SE, threads like this are killing the politics forum.
Well that's a relief.... I was getting worried for a second.... They did. Democrats = socialists. These threads ARE the politics forum. Don't get butthurt just because your outgunned....
Exactly. And they're boring. One after another threads simply proclaiming how biased and left wing the media is, it's getting old. If there was actually gonna be a political debate about it then fair enough, but there isn't in most of these anymore. Besides, in this case there is little evidence to support the notion that she was an extremist Muslim/Muslim terrorist. A crazy Muslim yes, but her actions don't seem to have any link with her religion at this time and therefore it's not really relevant to report on it. Just like it wouldn't be relevant to say that she'd been a Christian if that'd been the case. That's my take on it anway.
No one is forcing you to sit here and read these threads. In fact, I think the majority of "politics" forum dwellers wouldn't really mind if you just peaced out. It's no skin off my back, I'll tell you that. Political "debate"? With you? Laugh. er... what? Not a Muslim "extremist".... just a "crazy Muslim". Oh those crazy, crazy Muslims....