NY Times, BBC, and Other Media Outlets Describe Hamas Terrorists as ‘Hamas Gunmen’
“Do not refer to militants, soldiers or anyone else as ‘terrorists.’ The notion of terrorism remains heavily politicized and is part of the story.” – Canadian Broadcasting Corporation directive
Numerous mainstream media outlets here in the U.S., in Canada, and overseas have been hit with intense criticism this week after various analyses of their coverage have shown their refusal to use the word “terrorists” to describe Hamas terrorists after the atrocities they’ve committed against Israeli civilians.
Take, for instance, the NY Times, which in one report did use “terrorists” but later changed it to “gunmen”:
Here's the archive link with the original version that labeled Hamas as "terrorists" https://t.co/tmfYd9VZM5
Link to updated version calling them "gunmen" https://t.co/skOkc0TGhj
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 11, 2023
The @nytimes changed it from “terrorists” to “gunmen.”
Wouldn’t want to upset the Hamas Caucus, I guess. https://t.co/s1AJjIpC4K pic.twitter.com/LiELP4S9ki
— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) October 11, 2023
In their headlines, the Times has referred to Palestinian terrorists as “militants”:
Call them terrorists @nytimes https://t.co/BfkLOXW5hR
— Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) October 9, 2023
And when they did make a reference to terror, it was in a story on Palestinian children being terrified:
1/ After likely the largest atrocity against Jewish civilians since the Holocaust, the @nytimes front page—which talks of an "assault" by "militants" whose "gunmen" infiltrated Israel—does use a "terror" word once.
Only, it's in reference to *Palestinians* being terrified. pic.twitter.com/Pl12ibSODm
— Gilead Ini (@GileadIni) October 8, 2023
The BBC‘s coverage has also come under the microscope, so much so that their world affairs editor, John Simpson, wrote an entire article trying to explain why they won’t call Hamas terrorists:
The answer goes right back to the BBC’s founding principles.
Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn – who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
[…]
We don’t take sides. We don’t use loaded words like “evil” or “cowardly”. We don’t talk about “terrorists”. And we’re not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world’s most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy.
Simpson elaborated on his Twitter page in a tweet that got Community Noted to show that “absolute neutrality” was not required according to BBC impartiality standards on matters related to “fundamental democratic principles” and “the rule of law”:
British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it. Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality. The BBC’s job is to…
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) October 10, 2023
It should be pointed out that even the Royal Family has called the Hamas attacks terrorism:
King Charles last night condemned the ‘barbaric acts of terrorism’ inflicted on Israel.
If the King can rightfully call Hamas terrorists, why can’t the BBC? They’re trying to wilfully mislead the public. #DefundTheBBC
— Defund The BBC (@DefundBBC) October 12, 2023
A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation directive ordered reporters to not use the word “terrorists” in describing Hamas terrorists:
“Do not refer to militants, soldiers, or anyone else as ‘terrorists,’” the memo states, emphasizing “do not” with bold type. “The notion of terrorism remains heavily politicized and is part of the story. Even when quoting/clipping a government or a source referring to fighters as ‘terrorists,’ we should add context to ensure the audience understands this is opinion, not fact. That includes statements from the Canadian government and Canadian politicians.”
The memo originated from George Achi, Director of Journalistic Standards at the public broadcaster. It also cautions CBC journalists not to refer to 2005 as “the end of the occupation” of Gaza, “as Israel has maintained control over airspace, seafront and virtually all movement into or out of the area.”
We have just obtained what appears to be a leaked email written by CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corp) employee George Achi instructing reporters to:
1. not to mention Gaza has not been occupied since 2005
2. not refer to Palestinian terrorists as terroristsIf true, this… pic.twitter.com/rqlhfm1clX
— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) October 8, 2023
A media analyst colleague of mine at RedState also documented how several U.S.-based news outlets were referring to Hamas:
This use of deflective euphemisms typifies what was seen across the press spectrum. From ABC News to the AP, CBS News, NBC News, and Washington Post, most described the attackers as “militants,” as PBS went with Hamas “fighters,” and other outlets chose similar diminished headings, such as the BBC using “gunmen.”
I should point out that media outlets have been known to refer to the January 6th rioters as “insurrectionists” and the riots as “terrorism” but yet somehow can’t bring themselves to call actual terrorists out for who and what they are.
And yet they wonder why trust in their institution is at all-time lows.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They are enablers and they are complicit!
Terrorist is a fake news term anyway, and doesn’t seem to fit Hamas in a frontal attack even if on civilians. That’s a state action with their troops.
War crime and all that but not terrorism.
Hoffnung, in a German translation of one of his cartoon books about orchestras and concerts, showed a scruffy man holding a bomb with fuse labelled something like “atonalishe Attender.” That, and the IRA, strike me as legitimate terrorists, as far as usage goes.
Ridiculous. War crime is unlawfully killing non-combatants. Terrorism is burning babies alive and chopping off their heads. Stop being an egghead!
Calling them “gunmen” suggests that they shot a bunch of people, much like a mass shooting at a school or shopping center. They are trying to make us foget about the raping, torturing, cutting off heads and burning people alive.
It wasn’t a war crime at the time, for they were not at war when it happened. Furthermore, they indiscriminately killed people who were citizens of 23 different countries. They didn’t even attack soldiers or a military target. They raped, tortured, decapitated and burned people alive in a planned operation designed to terrorize.
Was responding to the claim made in the comment. If anything, these were acts of genocide and crimes against humanity, manifested through terrorism.
I was agreeing with you.
My apologies. I hit the wrong button. My comment was supposed to be directed to rhhardin
No need to apologize, but appreciate it.
Well, what’s one definition. A better one is that when a national military commits them, they are war crimes; when other actors (i.e., out of uniform) commit them, they are terrorism.
A civilian can commit a war crime, however, and a soldier can engage in terrorism. The acts committed could be either, or both, and could even include genocide and crimes against humanity.
These are war crimes by the military of the Gaza government which consists of Hamas. They are not in a uniform is just the start of the purposeful crimes of that government.
This is really sick. I understand that LI is in favor of Free Speech, but this statement that “Terrorist is a fake news term anyway, and doesn’t seem to fit Hamas.” I’m done with LI. I am revoking all of my automatic monthly contributions. I wish you well, but I will no longer be a part of you.
One terrorist that I’d call a terrorist because he actually causes terror, is the protection mob racket. Monthly protection money from businesses. That’s just called a mob protection racket though.
Maybe it could be extended usefully to the cancel culture, the woke as terrorists. If you talk, you lose your job and your bank services.
The political use of the term terrorist is pretty empty most of the time.
Derrida used to be called a philosophical terrorist, joking about the insecurity felt by official powerful philosophers when confronted with him. Google the cambridge affair 1992
Unions are terrorists.
So how in the world did they cut off the babies’ heads with a gun?
They forgot to mention there were also knife-men, fire-men, rapist-men, and sadist-men.
They are all of those things at once. You can just use the short hand evil men.
Chainsaw bayonet.
Yeah, that’s what I was wondering. What do I know about guns, I suppose. I mean, I’ve hunted since I was 11. When I was in the Navy I qualified with every firearm in the small arms locker. Yes, the Navy isn’t an infantry force and I was just a conventional intel officer but we do use guns for a variety of purposes. So I’m qualified on the S&W J frame snubby revolver (when I joined in the 1980s that was the issue aircrew weapon since the Mensa members who decide these things decided the standard issue semi-auto sidearms ejecting the empty cases promiscuously around in the aircraft might jam the controls. True; but if you’re on the ground fighting it out against an armed enemy with a pistol that aircraft is not going to fly again in any case and jamming the controls is the least of your worries). I also qualified with my personal handgun, a series 90 Colt Combat Elite (personal weapons were allowed as long as your weapon had fixed sights and fired either the .45 or 9mm ammo that was in the supply system), as well as the M9 (U.S. military designation for the commercial Beretta 92FS, a full sized 9mm pistol) and M11 (U.S. military designation for the SiG Sauer P228 which is what passed for a compact 9mm in the late eighties/early nineties for concealed carry). Long arms I qualified with were the Mossberg M590 12 ga. shotgun, the M14, and the M16.
I never figured out how I could accomplish basic military tasks such as cutting wood to make a fire or, I dunno, decapitating infants with those things. Silly me. Maybe the weapons experts who staff the newsrooms and studios at the NY Times, the Guardian, the BBC, etc., can fill me in. Clearly I have huge gaps in my experience and training and I’m sure every single one of the writers, editors, producers, and presenters/news anchors has extensive special warfare training, survival training, and loads of experience in bothl.
Hamas’s motive was probably something like causing an overreaction by Israel which makes agreement the Saudis politically difficult for the Saudis.
Thus preventing Hamas from losing bargaining leverage against Israel.
It’s not even a terror motive, it’s acting before it’s too late.
Overreaction? To ten 9-11s? Any care about the Americans?
Overreaction would be to eradicate all of Gaza without a care. Seeking to eradicate Hamas is far from an overreaction. Fighting people intent on your genocide is far from an overreaction. The reaction has been proper and more states should join in.
The Hamas project is to make Israel itself undermine the idea of a state of Jews being Jews. It plans to do this by radicalizing the Jewish citizens.
It won’t affect the survival of the state but just of the Jewish idea. Israel will become indistinguishable from Hamas. That’s the plan.
YouTube offers me as suggestions, at this instant, “Israel Troops Mass of Gaza Border as Hospitals Near Collapse” (Channel 4 News), “Israel Blocks Aid to Gaza as It Prepares for Potential Ground Offensive: (DW News), and similar.
So what? Because news outlets engage in disinformation you accept it as overreaction.
Maybe in the sophistry of your internal debate. In the real world we can make these distinctions quite easily.
Shooting the family dog is bad. Shooting the family dog who is rabid and a danger is an unfortunate example of self preservation and the fulfilment of a duty required for the protection of one’s family.
I’ve never subscribed to the ridiculous Hollywood trope of “if you eradicate an enemy who is intent on eradicating you, you become just like them.” It’s pure bullshit. Someone who eradicates a lethal danger can never be equivalent to someone who commits that dangers unprovoked.
These media outlets have taken a side and should be shunned and attacked like universities.
“But what about us grils?”
Alan Korwin complains:
Calling murderers “gunmen” is offensive, sexist, gunist, and violates journalism ethics because it is propaganda.
What would journalists call a female gunman? It’s straight anti-gun-rights propaganda.
Without idolization, a lethal villain is a: murderer, mass murderer, homicidal maniac, killer, spree killer, assassin, butcher, psychopath, armed psychopath, armed jihadi, armed maniac, muslim jihadi, active jihadi on the loose and many similar accurate appropriately pejorative terms that do not glorify criminals or evil.
It is about hiding the evil actions of the men behind the gun. You are absolutely on the mark about it being anti-gun-rights propaganda. The usual suspects will be wanting our guns even as it it obvious that this is exactly why we need to be armed.
They are the soldiers of the Gaza Army employed by the elected government of Gaza who has declared war on Israel.
They are not lawful combatants and they have no legitimate claim to assert under the rules of war. Compounding this is that Hamas isn’t signatory to the rules. They are NOT Soldiers.
Uhh, this is exactly what I’d expect someone who is historically illiterate to conclude. Islam has a thin playbook, but the Muslims have been using it for 1200 years so I would expect at some point non-Muslims would catch on but in the modern self-hating West actually understanding what devout Muslims such as the Hamas terrorists are actually up to (which, again, isn’t hard since they keep doing the same thing over and over and over again) makes one a bigot, racist, or Islamophobe.
Their plan was (and still is) to displace the Jewish population in the area they attacked and colonize it. They expected their allies to force Israel to accept a cease fire before they responded. Then having depopulated the communities outside the borders of Gaza they would move women and children in and dare the Israelis to do anything.
Surah 2:191 “Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them- this is what such disbelievers deserve.
I much prefer the Oxford edition of the Quran by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem to the more popular but horribly inaccurate Abdullah Yusuf Ali transliteration of the Quran. When I say it’s inaccurate, I mean watered down to make Islam less offensive to a Western audience. When the Quran tells Muslims that they can rape their still married captured women (4:24 was “revealed” to Muhammad when the Muslims defeated a non-Muslim village and captured some of the husbands alive along with their wives and didn’t want to rape the women “in the presence of their husbands” since they thought it might be adultery; they had previously killed all the men before raping the widows who were now their sex slaves, but “Allah” as channeled by Muhammad assured them that any marriage rites as practiced by the filthy unbelievers was meaningless so rape away) Abdel Haleem makes no bones about what exactly is going on. He doesn’t use the euphemisms Yusuf Ali uses, such as “those that your right hand possess” or “handmaidens.” Abdel Haleem simply says “slave.”
Then having unilaterally exercised their “right of return” based upon their self-serving lies (the Jews didn’t drive them out, it was the invading Arab armies that told them to get out of the way thinking it would only be a matter of hours or perhaps a few days until they wiped those filthy Jews out of existence; the Nakba fable is a lie just as the lies they tell themselves about their persecution at the hands of the Jews because everything they blame on Israel are all self-inflicted wounds), based upon the same self-serving lies they would push for more and more concessions and they expected their allies to force the hated Jews to make those concessions. As they are doing in Africa. That’s now the main focus of the Islamic State (it’s no longer ISIS). They are active in Tanzania and Mozambique and allied with al Shabab headquartered in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria and fully expect to establish a caliphate on that continent. And given the willful ignorance of Westerners who are suicidally determined to pretend that these Muslims are conventional enemies with conventional demands, we can come to some negotiated peace. Then push for more and more concessions, with the fools in the international community thinking they can negotiate their way out of it (especially if the land they’re willing to trade for peace isn’t even theirs but Israel’s).
That is insane. Islam is a shame culture. It would be shameful to negotiate with the Jews. They could have negotiated a peace anytime they wanted, if it was peace they wanted. They don’t want peace; like Putin the Muslims want their empire back. After Israel they’ll want al Andalus (Spain) and the Mughal Empire in India. As an appetizer. Once they conquer a land it belongs to the Muslims forever. But they won’t stop there.
Surah 98:6 “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. THOSE ARE THE WORST OF CREATURES.”
Since I’m bad with HTML codes I use all caps instead of italics or bolding.
Surah 3:110 “YOU ARE THE BEST COMMUNITY EVER RAISED FOR HUMANITY—you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious.”
Got that? Per their Islamic ideology Muslims are the best people who ever lived. While Christians, Jews, and other “people of the book” (Ahl al Khittub) are the worst of all created beings. Lower than cock roaches.
Unlike you I’m decades past being able to lie to myself about why Muslims hate all of us, not just the Israelis. It has nothing to do with our policies and all the imaginary crimes they invent knowing that they can play the gullible among us who desperately want to believe against all evidence, logic, and the evidence of 1200 years of history that if we modify our behavior they’ll stop hating us. There is nothing we can do to make them stop hating us. The Islamic state used to have an online magazine called Dabiq. Dabiq is a small town in what is now in Syria where during the end times an apocalyptic battle between the “crusaders” and the Muslims will take place. Spoiler alert: per Islamic eschatology, the Muslims win.
In July 2016 they published an article with the title “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You.” They openly mocked people who stubbornly cling to the delusion that they hate us for something we’ve done to them. The simple fact is that they hate us because they are commanded to hate us. They divide the world into Dar al Islam, the House of Islam where Muslims rule, and Dar al Harb, where Muslims don’t yet rule. Per their ideology non-Muslims have no right to rule anywhere on Earth. Only Muslims can govern, and we are criminals for not allowing Muslims to rule over us and refusing to accept 3rd class status (2nd class status belonging to Muslim women).
They hate us because they are commanded to hate us.
Surah 60:1 – 4 “O you who have believed, do not take My ENEMIES AND YOUR ENEMIES as allies, extending to them affection WHILE THEY HAVE DISBELIEVED in what came to you of the truth, having driven out the Prophet and yourselves [only] because you believe in Allah , your Lord. If you have come out for jihad in My cause and seeking means to My approval, [take them not as friends]. You confide to them affection, but I am most knowing of what you have concealed and what you have declared. And whoever does it among you has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way. If they gain the upper hand over you, they will revert to being your enemies and stretch out their hands and tongues to harm you; it is their dearest wish that you may renounce your faith. Neither your kinsfolk nor your children will be any use to you on the Day of Resurrection: He will separate you out. God sees everything you do. You have a good example in Abraham and his companions, WHEN THEY SAID to their people, ‘We disown you and what you worship besides God! We renounce you! Until you believe in God alone, the ENMITY and HATRED that has arisen between us will endure!’––EXCEPT WHEN ABRAHAM SAID to his father, ‘I will pray for forgiveness for you though I cannot protect you from God’––[they prayed] ‘Lord, we have put our trust in You; we turn to You; You are our final destination.”
This is just one of numerous verses that make it clear that Muslims are to take Allah’s enemies as their own, that Allah’s enemies are simply those who refuse to accept Islam as if it were a legitimate religion, and therefore refuse to accept the Allah of the Quran as God nor Muhammad as a prophet, and that Muslims are supposed to hate the enemies of Allah, and therefore their enemies, with every fiber in their being. This is why Allah presents Abraham as an excellent example of conduct when he and his followers disown their own families and vow enmity and hatred between the two factions forever until their families accept Islam. But note Abraham is not an example to be emulated (and when Allah tells the Muslims that persons are an excellent example to be emulated it isn’t presented as if emulating them is optional if they wish to see heaven) when he says he will pray for his father. Muslims are not allowed to pray for non-Muslims, not must they ever be grateful to them, nor are non-Muslims worthy negotiating partners. Muslims are supposed to violently subjugate non-Muslims (when non-Muslims are allowed to continue) to exist, and in general make the lives of non-Muslims a living hell. In the Bible God says, “Vengeance is mine. I shall repay.” In the Quran the Muslims are the tools of Allah’s vengeance.
Surah 9:14 – 15 “Fight them: GOD WILL PUNISH THEM AT YOUR HANDS, He will DISGRACE them, He will help you to CONQUER them, He will HEAL THE BELIEVERS’ FEELINGS and REMOVE THE RAGE from their hearts. God turns to whoever He will in His mercy; God is all knowing and wise.”
Note how since the Quran commands Muslims to hate disbelievers simply because of their refusal to believe the Quran presumes they are literally trembling with rage. Note how the Quran presumes the only thing that will heal that rage is if they are allowed to go on a killing spree. Note how sexually degrading and humiliating non-Muslim women is central to this healing process. And this isn’t actually wrong in many cases. Think the “grooming gangs” of Rotherham and really all across and up and down the width and length of England. Imagine how enraging it is for Muslims raised in Pakistan (most Muslims either from Pakistan or of Pakistani descent) where they were indoctrinated to believe it was their destiny to rule the whole world. Yet, there they are in Britain serving the infidels kabobs or carting them around as Taxi drivers. They need revenge, and the only way they can get it is by climbing on top of a terrified teen aged infidel girl. Then pimping her out. Because that is how the world is supposed to be; if there was true Islamic justice that would be the natural order. It’s why when the few men who were prosecuted were tried the court rooms were full of their supporters including their wives who also believe that non-Muslim women are in fact whores and by raping them their husbands were performing a kind of worship to Allah. In fact the girls who were raped, exploited, and prostituted said the Muslim men would often pray and tell them that raping them was in itself a form of prayer. They’d even force the victims to read the Quran.
Muslims will never negotiate for peace with the Jews because their ideology is an ideology of conquest, empire, and supremacy. They are the best of peoples while we (all non-Muslims, not just Jews) are lower than cockroaches. One doesn’t negotiate with cockroaches over their right to exist. The Tripolitan ambassador to London made this abundantly clear to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who were two of our envoys to Europe during the Revolutionary War:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-09-02-0315
“American Commissioners to John Jay, 28 March 1786
American Commissioners to John Jay
Grosr. Square March 28th. 1786Sir
Soon after the arrival of Mr. J. in London, we had a conference with the Ambassador of Tripoli, at his House.
The amount of all the information we can obtain from him was that a perpetual peace was in all respects the most advisable, because a temporary treaty would leave room for increasing demands upon every renewal of it, and a stipulation for annual payments would be liable to failures of performance which would renew the war, repeat the negotiations and continually augment the claims of his nation and the difference of expence would by no means be adequate to the inconvenience, since 12,500 Guineas to his Constituents with 10 pr. Cent upon that sum for himself, must be paid if the treaty was made for only one year.
That 30,000 Guineas for his Employers and £3,000 for himself were the lowest terms upon which a perpetual peace could be made and that this must be paid in Cash on the delivery of the treaty signed by his sovereign, that no kind of Merchandizes could be accepted.
That Tunis would treat upon the same terms, but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.
THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS. THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise…”
Barack Obama often lied and claimed or at least implied that Jefferson had a Quran because he respected Islam. He owned a Quran for the same reason I have a couple of different English translations on my shelf along with Das Kapital and I used to have Mein Kampf (but I lost it during one of my frequent moves). It’s important to get inside your enemy’s head. Obama kept saying that Islam has been part of the story of America since our founding. True. As an enemy. Having read the Quran (“an obvious forgery,” he told one of the founders who asked Jefferson to pick him up a copy while in Europe), having dealt with the Tripolitan ambassador in London, and then after hosting the crude, uncouth envoy from the ruler of Tunis, he decided the only way to deal with Muslims was to build a powerful fleet and a Marine Corps and send it into the Mediterranean to sink the Barbary Coast pirates’ fleets, kill Muslims, crack some skulls, and in general put the fear of God into them. There is no negotiating with these people; there never has been.
Make no mistake; when you accuse the Israelis of overreacting in a perverse way they did. They think they have lives and a country that they have a right to defend. They have no such right per Islam. No non-Muslim has that right, and to the knowledgeable Muslim their continued existence is enraging. Hindus had it worse than Jews because Hindus are in fact polytheists.
https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history
“The genocide suffered by the Hindus of India at the hands of Arab, Turkish, Mughal and Afghan occupying forces for a period of 800 years is as yet formally unrecognised by the World.
With the invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D., began the Muslim invasions into the Indian subcontinent and they lasted for several centuries. Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone. Babur raised towers of Hindu skulls at Khanua when he defeated Rana Sanga in 1527 and later he repeated the same horrors after capturing the fort of Chanderi. Akbar ordered a general massacre of 30,000 Rajputs after he captured Chithorgarh in 1568. The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100,000 Hindus every year.
The history of medieval India is full of such instances. The holocaust of the Hindus in India continued for 800 years, till the brutal regimes were effectively overpowered in a life and death struggle by the Sikhs in the Panjab and the Hindu Maratha armies in other parts of India in the late 1700’s.
We have elaborate literary evidence of the World’s biggest holocaust from existing historical contemporary eyewitness accounts. The historians and biographers of the invading armies and subsequent rulers of India have left quite detailed records of the atrocities they committed in their day-to-day encounters with India’s Hindus…”
What was the attitude of the Muslims toward the Hindus?
“The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.
This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:
‘Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.’”
The Muslims were quite proud of their various genocides. The Nazis quite literally learned how to be Nazis from the Muslims and their attempted genocides of the Armenians, Assyrians, and the Greeks. It was the Muslims who came up with the methods the Nazis later used against the Jews. For instance, the Turks would herd Armenians into caves, then begin sealing the cave but not entirely. Chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas are lethal agents and all were used in WWI. Against troops in the field none are efficient killers particularly after opposing armies developed fairly simple countermeasures. Phosgene was normally used blended with chlorine in a compound the U.S. army labelled White Star.
But against defenseless people in confined spaces like a cave all could be pumped in to reach high enough concentrations to kill. The German advisers and observers attached to Turkish units simply took notes and later came up with ideas on how to improve on these methods.
When the Nazis rose to power some of them were a bit nervous about Hitler’s plans to exterminate the Jews. Their reservations weren’t moral in nature. They simply didn’t believe the world would let them get away with it. Hitler would simply wave in the vague direction of Turkey and exclaim, “The world has already forgotten about the Armenians!” The Nazis hadn’t discovered that the world makes exceptions for Muslims and their Islamic ideology that they don’t make for anyone else. For some reason it’s different when the Muslims commit genocide in the name of Allah. I admit; I don’t get it.
Sahih Muslim – The Book of Tribulations and Portents of the Last Hour – Volume 54 – Hadith 2922:
” Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
Reference: Sahih Muslim 2922
In-book reference: Book 54, Hadith
How did the Jews “overreact” and “play into the hands” of Hamas? They continued to exist. Their existence is such a provocation that even nature will turn against them.
Of course, as they are fond of saying, first the Muslims will come from for the Saturday people. Then they’ll come for the Sunday people. They hate all of us. The 1st chapter in the Quran is the Fatiha prayer. It’s also known as the cursing prayer. It’s a short chapter, only 7 verses long. The final 2 verses are as follows:
“Guide us (O’ Lord) on the Straight Path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy bounties, not (the path) of those inflicted with Thy wrath, nor (of those) gone astray.”
The Jews have earned Allah’s wrath, while the Christians have gone astray. The Fatiha prayer is said during all five daily prayers. So five times a day Muslims curse Jews and Christians. And five times a day Muslims are compelled to remind themselves that if they don’t hate unbelievers as their ideology demands then they also have gone astray and deserve Allah’s wrath.
To be fair most Muslims, particularly those born and raised in the West, don’t think in those terms. But most Muslims don’t know what’s in the Quran. And to be honest their religious authorities prefer it that way.
The NYT has a sorrry record of whitewashing Nazism, and Communism , ignoring the Holocaust as well as a strong hatred of Israel and any form of traditional Jewish identity. It is an expensive pre Musk Twittrer page