This would be one of the many reasons I cannot deal with the New York Times:
The New York Times does not tell us whether Tareq Mehanna, the 27-year-old Massachusetts pharmacist who was just arrested on federal terrorism charges, is or even might be a Muslim. In their pages, telling this particular truth is still verboten, politically incorrect, rude, racist, a cheap shot, even “Islamophobic.”
Look: Mehanna might have traveled to Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen (which he did) because, as a relatively young man, he just wanted to sew his wild oats. No matter that Mehanna and his “associates,” including one Ahmad Abousamra who subsequently fled to Syria, had traveled together “seeking training from terrorist groups to fight against American soldiers.” No matter that Mehanna had tried to buy a gun from one Daniel Maldonado who is “currently serving a 10-year-prison sentence for training with Al Qaeda in Somalia. “
Why should the Times suggest that Mehanna’s motivation might be related to Islamic jihad? That hypothesis would tarnish an entire religion, an entire people. It can’t be true—but even if it is true, it’s too troubling and unpleasant a truth. Why connect the dots when you can continue to confuse people?
The alternate reality that NYT reporters live in rivals that of Madrasah-brainwashed 14 year-olds for sheer fantasy.
Why is this considered the pinnacle of journalism?
0 Response to “One randomly pissed off Massachusetts pharmacist”