In wake of jihad mass murder at Jewish school, New York Times propagates fears of fictitious “anti-Muslim” backlash

Some things don't change, including the NY Times' love of statism, collectism and dead Jews. The Times loved Stalin (with little concern for his 20 million dead), and they covered for Hitler and his twelve million dead.

A French jihadist slaughtered Jewish children, mowed them down as they went to Jewish day school, French soldiers were executed in cold blood, and Muslim communities are posting this (photo below): ""you are a true Knight for islam.   You fought zionist sh_ _ and false muslims.  You died with guns in your hands.  I salute you Mohamed my brother, my friend. Rest in peace." And what is the NY Times propagating? Islamic supremacist fiction.

In wake of jihad mass murder at Jewish school, New York Times presents Muslims in France as victims fearing "backlash" Jihadwatch

Predictable, but no less monstrous for that. "Muslims in France Waiting for the Backlash," by Souad Mekhennet for the New York Times, April 10:

PARIS — The attacks in France committed by Mohammed Merah, a French-born Muslim whose parents migrated from Algeria, have millions of Muslims living in the West worried about the potential consequences. In particular, women worry that they will become the focus of campaign politics.

Many friends who wear the hijab and live in Europe reported getting angry looks after the attacks, said Malika, 29, a German of Moroccan background who works in a bank and declined to have her last name published.

Angry looks! Horror of horrors! The other day I was at a Hertz counter and a Muslim clerk gave me a dirty look — I don't think he recognized me, but perhaps just took me for a Jew — and ostentatiously bypassed me for the person behind me in line. Will the New York Times write about me?

Mr. Merah, 23, had traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan and claimed affiliation with Al Qaeda. He killed seven people, three of them children.

“It is terrible what he has done, and there is nothing in Islam that justifies the killing of innocents, especially children,” said Naima, 26, who also spoke on the condition that her full identity be withheld.

The problem is that Muslim hardliners consider no non-Muslim to be innocent. And the Qur'an tells us that "the unbelievers among the People of the Book" — that is, the Jews and Christians who reject Muhammad and Islam — are not human beings worthy of respect although they differ from Muslims in conscience, but "the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).

Naima and other Muslims in France would no doubt strongly reject such a view, but we cannot know that for sure, since they do not address it, and no mainstream media journalist ever asks them to do so.

“But will we Muslims, and especially Muslim women, have to pay the price now?”

No. The rabbi and the children Merah murdered at the Jewish school in the name of Islam and jihad already paid the price.

Naima cited the debate in France over where Mr. Merah was to be buried — in the end, Algeria refused his body, and he was buried in Toulouse — as evidence of double standards about who is embraced as French and who remains firmly Muslim.

“When someone is like Zidane, a great sportsman, they say he’s French, and when one like Merah, who is a child of this society, runs nuts and kills people, they say he’s not one of us,” she said.

You mean you want to claim him?

Naima’s parents, like Mr. Merha’s [sic], came from Algeria. She grew up in the suburbs of Paris.

Naima and many other Muslims in Europe wonder whether they are caught in a vicious cycle in which increasing xenophobia helps radicalize a generation of Muslims born in France, and they ask whether attacks like Mr. Merah’s will further increase Islamophobia.

Notice that it is "xenophobia" that helps "radicalize" young Muslims. Texts of the Qur'an and Sunnah exhorting believers to wage war against unbelievers? No, those have nothing to do with this "radicalization," nothing whatsoever. It is entirely the fault of the West, despite the fact that Muslim leaders in Europe have repeatedly warned Muslims there not to assimilate, but to form ethnic/religious enclaves. The Muslim leader Dyab Abou Jahjah in Belgium said a few years back that "assimilation is cultural rape."

Mahvish Rukhsana Khan, an American lawyer living in Los Angeles and the author of the book “My Guantánamo Diary,” asserted that “French politics have generated anti-Islamic sentiment,” but that clearly Mr. Merah “needed his head checked.”

Yet again, there is no hint whatsoever that any Muslims could have done anything to be responsible for any "anti-Islamic sentiment," if any actually exists.

“Nothing justifies his heinous attacks,” she said.

Mr. Merah also stated that France had become increasingly anti-Muslim, citing the ban of the niqab, the veil over women’s faces….

“Between having entire families massacred in Kandahar by a sociopath U.S. soldier, drones wiping out entire families or bombs dropping on weddings,” Mrs. Khan said, “there are multiple sources to anger toward Western countries.”

Yes, and no reasons at all for what Mrs. Khan would term "Islamophobia." Just never mind all those jihad terror attacks committed in the name of Islam.

Mrs. [Yvonne] Ridley said: “Western governments must start to take responsibility for their actions abroad, and these actions are not usually with the consent or in the agreement of their own citizens who elected them.”

Yes, yes, Western governments must start to take responsibility. But do Muslims need to start taking responsibility for how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite to violence? Of course not!

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

0 0 votes

Article Rating

18 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Frank

12 years ago

IN WAKE OF JIHAD MASS MURDER AT JEWISH SCHOOL, NEW YORK TIMES PROPAGATES FEARS OF FICTITIOUS “ANTI-MUSLIM” BACKLASH
It’s as if they are saying: “If you act like a normal person and get pssed-off at this Muslim (Qu’ran approved) behavior we’ll cell you intolerant.”
Really?

0

alex from aberdeen

12 years ago

Yes Pamela, but isn’t this a point worth making, in response to such complaints about Western (i.e. democratic) governments:
Vote then.
There is a reason why I (for example) will never strap a rucksack full of explosives on my back and blow myself up aboard a crowded bus. There is a reason why I will never, even under threat of death myself, ever, take up arms against troops from my own country who are fighting abroad. There is a reason why I will never, ever, under any circumstances whatever, murder a little child. There is a reason why I will never, ever consider Israel an enemy, or Jews to be my enemy.
I am not a Muslim.
If I’m not happy with what my government is doing, then as all civilised people do who live in a democratic society, I will vote accordingly come election time. It’s that simple: if you’re not happy with what your government is doing – vote.
The preposterous notion that infanticide and shooting serving troops is in any conceivable way justified because the perpetrator of such heinous crimes (and crimes they are) was unhappy with what his government was doing is simply not tenable, in any way shape or form.
If Mohamed Merah, or anyone else living in France, wanted to express their disapproval of what the French government was doing, then all they need to do is vote. There is an election coming up you know …
On the other hand, there is a reason why Merah committed the crimes he did, why Willie Brigitte and his fellow terrorist sympathisers at Forsane Alizza have been run in and why their deeds have support among the Muslim “community” in France.
What could it be I wonder …

0

Quran 4-101

12 years ago

Backlash would be both suitable and in good taste.

0

Auntie Izlam

12 years ago

Can’t wait for the backlash”, it’s a long time coming and well earned.

0

RalphB

12 years ago

A Parable in Twelve Questions for the New York Times
Why hasn’t it occurred to you, NY Times, that a little backlash, non-violent obviously — well, maybe on rare occasions, grasping someone by the lapels? — may actually be a good thing?
Let us imagine that I am a good and decent hat salesman, a family man, paying my dues to the SHS — Society of Hat Salespersons — minding my own business, and not bothering much with the SHS handbook, journal, and annual convention. And what if week after week it just so happens that multiple mass murders are being committed by, of all people, hat salesmen? I hear about it occasionally, of course, and wonder if it’s the stress of the job, but since I get regular bulletins from the SHS that make no mention of such things, but rather urge the membership to go forth and persuade the hatless ones to adopt the wonderful hat-wearing lifestyle and sometimes report foolish insults against the SHS by the hatless ones, I pay little attention to it. No one has bothered me and I just can’t get my head around the incomprehensible bloodbaths in far away cites and lands.
Now be honest, NY Times, don’t you think I ought to be awakened from my dogmatic slumbers, even if it requires me to have my feelings hurt a little bit when acquaintance after hatless acquaintance asks in a well-meaning sotto voce, “What the hell is wrong with all you freaking mass-murdering hat salesmen?!” Now I realize, NY Times, that it is rude and unfair for others to ask such a question of an innocent and peaceful family man such as myself who has never harmed a fly, but mightn’t it be a good thing, both for myself and my profession, if I were made just a smidgen uncomfortable, uncomfortable enough to start asking questions about the hat trade and perhaps taking a closer look at the policies and publications of the Society of Hat Salespersons?
Now just suppose that in taking that closer look, I discover that the SHS handbook states, surprisingly, “Do not suffer the hatless ones to live, but if they renounce their hatless ways and embrace the greatness of the Hat, then they may live.” I may think, as many SHS members do, my goodness, I never thought of it that way, but who am I to question the SHS? Or, alternatively, suppose I am shocked and look into this and discover that those murders attributed to hat salesmen actually have been almost always murders of the hatless ones. That just doesn’t sound like job stress. Could it be the SHS policies themselves?!! I may think, “My goodness, maybe I should get involved in the SHS, and try to modify this policy towards the unrepentant hatless ones!”
Wouldn’t that be a good thing, NY Times?
And what if the penalty for members attempting to modify the policies of the SHS were death?
Wouldn’t the right thing be to attempt a little backlash yourself on your editorial pages by asking the SHS to modify their policies in the interest of human dignity and survival? Or would your own policy be that (except for Obama’s speeches and Paul Krugman’s ravings, obviously) all alleged facts and values may be questioned other than the rules of the Society of Hat Salespersons?
What about it, NY Times?

0

Pedophile prohet muhammed

12 years ago

Everyone who is disgusted with the Socialist New York Times can vote with their wallets and NOT BUY THE NY TIMES.
BDS the NYT.
Boycott the NYT
Divest from the NYT.
Sanction the NYT.

0

james

12 years ago

The New York Slimes Doesn’t hate Jews; it hates Christians; but especially Catholics.

0

D

BB

12 years ago

The Times had an article today in which they quoted the British PM David Cameron on his travels to Indonesia, that Muslims need to ask themselves whether Islam can coincide with democracy and that they need to make decisions for the future based on the answers they get from that question.
A subtle hint that Islam and western democracy doesn’t get along at all.
Whether people say anything in the open or not in Europe, I haven’t met even ONE person who does not agree that Muslims are a huge problem in our society. They are violent and a serious threat to all of us. No one understands why they have been given the green to enter and get residency in our countries.
In the U.S. people really don’t grasp how dangerous Muslims are. Muslims themselves (first generation immigrants) often admit they have very dangerous elements in their people/religion. And it is actually Muslims who are the biggest opponents to any further spread of Sharia, Islam and increased immigration from the middle east to our nations.
In America there is a HUGE problem with the greencard lottery. It allows THOUSANDS of Muslims to enter into this country. This lottery is set-up as a percentage based on the population rather than as a percentage based on the similarities of society. So for example, a Muslim nation with a huge population has a far higher number of applicant approvals than, say, Germany.
And this is simply INSANE and has to stop. Americans need to lobby to make immigration from these countries cease and stop.
Since Muslims manipulate and misuse all the Human Rights laws we have established for normal cases, we cannot wish for any form of backlash and a backlash would be insane. It also doesn’t reflect what out societies are, since we are not Muslim and should not be as violent and vindictive as they are. A backlash would only reinforce and strengthen them and their misuse of these laws. What we have to pressure, is to stop all Muslim immigration into our countries all together. And to encourage the cancellation of residency to many Muslims who have entered within the past two decades. Lenience have to be observed to women and gays, as they are very vulnerable.

0

Ago Solvo

12 years ago

Muslims around the world are using jihad to threaten the public while here at home we have 2 presidential candidates (Obama and Romney) that would like nothing more than to disarm the public so that they cannot protect themselves. 90% of America is supporting one of these 2 traitors. Interesting.

0

Walter Sieruk

12 years ago

The only “Anti-Muslim” backlash that Muslims have to fear is that the French people will finely to start owake up to the truth of the evil doctrines that Islam teaches.
Maybe that may stop some of the unchecked Islamic immigration into that country.

0

Pazuzu

12 years ago

Mongrel SOB. I pray he’s in hell with Mohammed.

0

Mzungu

12 years ago

Well maybe there should be a backlash. What’s wrong with that? Jihad is an anti-everybody backlash in and of itself. Some groups of people only learn with pain and punishment. Whoever survives is the fittest to survive, given that the goal is that a given culture survive.(active tense)
France- do you want to speak French and do the Frenchy things you are used to doing for centuries or do you want to sit in a fetal position and move your fingers on your lips like an idiot submitting to a culture of enslavement? Your choice I stand back and watch.

0

D

BB

12 years ago

ISLAM’s REAL ORIGIN? (Book review)
Memory’s imperfect fabric is the platform from which Tom Holland plunges into the story of the rise of Islam in his latest book, In the Shadow of the Sword.
Ostensibly, Islam was born “in the light of history” — the details of Islam’s origins and rapid expansion in the Near East purportedly have been faithfully remembered by the Muslim tradition. But Holland questions whether Islam’s version of history can be trusted: after all, most Arabic primary sources were written some centuries after Muhammad and naturally were subject to the selective biases of Muslim historians and theologians. In a direct challenge to the tradition’s authenticity, Holland marshals alternative sources, principally Byzantine and Persian, to explore how others saw Islam’s rise and he weaves a complex historical critique into a dramatic narrative.
He deftly navigates the vast array of unfamiliar names, sects and languages of the Near East between AD 400 and 750, and strikes a narrative course towards startling conclusions. Holland argues that Muhammad did not originate from Mecca, the first generations of Muslims were not called Muslims at all, and the entire enterprise of Islam emerged from a particular mix of ethnic, religious and historical conditions in that specific time and space. For Holland, Islam was a logical response to the zeitgeist, far from a miraculous spiritual revelation in Arabia.
Given Islam’s central position in the current political limelight, revisionist historians will eagerly consume this bold foray into its origins, but readers must be cautious when drawing conclusions. Holland is not so cautious in his writing. He commences with the usual historian’s caveat that his interpretations are only tentative, but his tenacious style and judicious selection of evidence radically revise history with the self-assurance and inspiring logic of a barrister in closing argument.
(…)
Ultimately, Holland’s work is another selective recollection of the past, carefully constructed according to his own revisionist agenda. To demonstrate his thesis of Islam’s organic development, he deliberately crafts a vision of Late Antiquity into which Islam fits as the perfect jigsaw piece, smoothly caressing all the contours of the contemporary intellectual, spiritual, economic and political circumstances. His story requires wholesale creative reinterpretation (he curiously imagines the pre-Islamic Ghassanid Arabs as Christian holy warriors), as well as various omissions of inconvenient truths which gainsay his historical reconstruction (in denying Mecca’s initial importance, he overlooks the fifth Caliph Mu’awiya’s early inscription near Mecca).
Holland’s alternative explanation of the “real” origins of Islam falls short of its objective. A prodigiously lucid historical narrative, such as Holland’s, which boldly claims to recover the true past, constructs a bridge too far. Once elapsed, the events of history survive in memory only as kernels of recollection, relentlessly eroded by the ravages of time and endlessly reinterpreted as tastes and agendas of historians change.
(…)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/book/islams-real-origins-7640194.html?origin=internalSearch

0

Linda Rivera

12 years ago

NY Times are revolting and disgusting. Jews are being made to fear for their lives from Muslims and NY Times continuously DECEIVES and engages in propaganda for Islam, to make it appear that Muslims are victims when Jews are the VICTIMS. Eternal shame on EVIL NY Times.

0

MethanP

12 years ago

Well; the New York Times! There’s an objective voice on the subject.

0

Mary

12 years ago

The “backlash” they are claiming Muslims are worried about is the action that Muslims would take under a dhimmitude contract, they would be legally (under Sharia law) free to lift dhimmitude “protection” off of all non-Muslims and roam about plundering, abusing, raping, and murdering non-Muslims for the defiant action of one non-Muslim. Anyone who has not seen and heard of that scenario over and over again is living under the proverbial rock. The media is also seeking to prevent consequences of any kind for Muslims committing jihad.

0

Mary

12 years ago

Backlashophobia strikes again . . .
The Muslim Brotherhood’s global jihad used our own saying against us in using “The best defense is a good offense” when they coined the phrase Islamophobia. Yet, they crumble when it is applied to jihad because jihad is, in truth, merely selfish ambition.

0

Cool Music

12 years ago

SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE A BUMPER STICKER SAYING… islam IS HARAM.
IN DIRTY ARABIC, LOVELY ENGLISH , ROMANTIC FRENCH, ANCIENT HINDI AND WHICHEVER LANGUAGE MUSLIMS HAVE FESTERED INTO.
IT’S A GOOD START. EVEN i= H WILL BE A BEGINNING.
I REPEAT….SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE A BUMPER STICKER SAYING… islam IS HARAM.
IN DIRTY ARABIC, LOVELY ENGLISH , ROMANTIC FRENCH, ANCIENT HINDI AND WHICHEVER LANGUAGE MUSLIMS HAVE FESTERED INTO.
IT’S A GOOD START. EVEN i= H WILL BE A BEGINNING.

0