Anyway, the mainstream coverage is predictable.
CNN, other than calling Mohammad 'the Prophet' (capitalized-- and how long before they include 'peace be upon him') is explaining why Muslims don't like anyone to produce images of the Prophet.. it's blasphemy. Oh, and Geller's group is a 'hate group' according to the hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center. Don't say it out loud, but they had it coming!
NBC makes a point to mention the extremists (no, not Geller's people) were using 'assault rifles', which illustrates the barbarity while opening the gun control door just a crack.
CBS has a huge headline mentioning 'the Prophet' Mohammad. Otherwise it's pretty fair so far.
ABC seems to have the most fair and balanced coverage of the legacy outlets, using the word 'prophet' in coverage but NOT in capital letters, as in "Islam's prophet Mohammad". Nice job. Their story on one of the perps is standard breaking news.
The WaPo informs readers of the incendiary Pamela Geller and her status with the SPLC. Does the SPLC consider Charlie Hebdo a hate group?
Finally, the Paper of Record pulls a story out of their archives about the 'firebrand' Geller, to accompany their normal coverage.
Overall not surprising. We'll see if it gets any worse, if and when the Islamic extremist apologists feel it's safe to pop up out of their holes and call this "hate" or even white privilege (never underestimate the far left).
As for Geller, my own personal opinion isn't very high on her but that's neither her nor there. She had a free speech rally knowing Muslims would be offended and lo and behold a few showed up and started shooting, which proves her point.
As to whether these two were actual members of ISIS or wannabes claiming allegiance, time will tell. The authorities have poo-poo'ed the Judicial Watch report about an ISIS camp near Anapra, Mexico and this may or may not be involved. It doesn't really matter. The bottom line is, as the former CIA Deputy Director recently admitted, the terrorists were never 'on the run'. That's why they described Benghazi as they did. It's a continuing problem that's not going anywhere no matter what Westerners do or say, short of widespread conversion.
No comments:
Post a Comment