Are Terrorists “Adorable” to the NY Times? Depends On Whom They Kill?

 

We had assumed that Terrorism is now deemed to be an absolute “evil” across America. We were jolted this week to see that isn’t so. The New York Times reminded us that whether terrorism is bad or “adorable” depends on the religion of those they kill.  

The New York Times has been very clear. When Muslim terrorists kill in Paris or Brussels, they are evil & they deserve to be punished. But the NYT also demonstrated this week that when Muslim terrorists kill Hindus, they are not evil. On the contrary, they can even be described as “Adored”. And they can’t even be termed as terrorists. They are merely militants, even an “Adored” band of militants.

Look how the New York Times described the actions of this “Adored” band of militants:

  • “They hide in the forest, emerging occasionally to lure police officers into villages where they try to kill them with explosive devices. They steal weapons from the security forces. Then they disappear back among the trees.”

These actions make this band seem “adorable” to the New York Times? How many times have we seen such behavior by “terrorists”, sorry “militants” around the world?

Right here in America in 2016, we have seen terrorist type attacks on America’s police resulting in entrapment & deaths of policemen in Dallas, Baton Rouge and other cities. These acts were committed by men who have been disaffected by “white” rule and lost faith in the American government, excuses that the NYT accepts from the Hindu killing Muslim Terrorists. 

We have seen killings in Paris, Brussels by Muslims disaffected by “white” Christian rule who have lost faith in French & Belgium governments. We saw a pair of Muslim men set off bombs in the Boston Marathon killing many and wounding many more. This pair of brothers was disaffected and had lost faith in the American government. 

In these & so many other cases, did you ever read the New York Times describe the killers as “Adorable” or more precisely as an “Adored” band of Militants?

Never. That is partly true because the NYT is itself a predominantly “white” company but also true because the American people & their own readers would retaliate hard if the NYT terms as “Adored”, the terrorist killers of Paris, Brussels, Boston, Dallas or Baton Rouge. This is despite the fact that these Muslim terrorist killers were indeed “Adored” by a large section of Muslims in the Middle East & the world. 

But the New York Times understands that while these Muslim terrorist killers may be “Adored” in parts of the Islamic world, they are thought of as the worst type of evil by everybody else. And therefore, it would be horribly dangerous for the New York Times to term these Muslim terrorist killers as an “Adored” band of militants. Of course, that is when the killings are in America or Europe. 

No such compunctions arise for the New York Times when Muslim terrorists kill Hindus in India. Just look at the description of these terrorists in the NYT. These Muslim terrorists “lure police officers“, “kill them with explosive devices“, “steal their weapons” and “disappear back among the trees“.  Then read the tone of the NYT article. 

The tone of the NYT article is the sort of tone used in writing about the merry followers of Robin Hood. Is that who the NYT thinks these Muslim terrorists are? In our opinion, the New York Times has a deep reservoir of anti-Hindu hate that may have crystallized into believing that Hindu deaths don’t matter as much as deaths of others.

Recall Winston Churchill’s chilling desire for extermination of Hindus in his comment*:

  • “the Hindus were a foul race ‘protected by their mere pullulation [rapid breeding] from the doom that is their due. He wished that Air Chief Marshall Arthur Harris, the Head of the British bomber command, could “send some of his surplus bombers to destroy them”.

We don’t think the New York Times actually wants to sees Hindus exterminated but we can infer from their articles that the New York Times writers & editors are singularly unmoved when Hindus are killed by Muslim Terrorists & that they generally try to apply excuses for such Hindu-killing Muslim terrorists that they would never apply to Muslim terrorists who kill Christians or Jews.

And they get away with it because the global Hindu community is supine to the point of being a collection of sheep. Just think, how many thousands of emails & letters would have flooded the New York Times had they termed a band of Muslim Hamas or Hezbollah terrorists as an “Adored” band of militants for killing Israelis.

We are willing to bet that not even 25 emails were sent to the New York Times protesting the “adored” term for Hindu killings by these Muslim terrorists. Actually we doubt even 5 emails were sent to the NYT from Hindus in America, India or other regions of the Indian diaspora.  

This apathy is what sustains the Religious Apartheid against Hindus in the American media. The New York Times is not alone. As we recall, Sue Herera of CNBC also termed Muslim terrorists against India as “militants” and this is despite, or perhaps because of, CNBC’s managing editor being an Indian-American &  presumably born into a Hindu family.

This brings us to Geeta Anand, the writer of the NYT article Kashmir Is Paralyzed by an ‘Adored’ Band of Militants. Her name is pure Hindu but she is, in our opinion, as derogatory towards Hindus as any one else at the NYT . This may mean nothing but Ms. Anand is married to a Greg Kroitzsh & they have named their kids as Tatyana and Aleka. We do not know whether Ms. Anand remains a Hindu but we see that she has not chosen a Hindu name for any of her kids. 

Why is this important or even relevant? Because we believe the NYT prefers Geeta Anand with her Hindu name to write anti-Hindu articles instead of obviously non-Hindu reporters like Ellen Barry. That makes the disclosure of her practices & attitudes towards Hindu religion & culture important. We firmly believe such disclosures to be an important part of the “whole truth” that journalism should practice. 

Note that Geeta Anand never even touched on the religious cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir, a Muslim majority part of India. It is well reported that, over the past 70 years, the Muslim majority systematically purged the Hindu minority from Kashmir by driving them out with violence & boycotts. Such “religious cleansing” of Hindus has been unabashedly supported & celebrated by the Muslim majority of Kashmir. This Muslim majority remains virulently opposed to the return of cleansed out Kashmiri Hindus to Kashmir. 

So is it any wonder that Muslim terrorists who kill Hindus become an “Adored” band of “militants” in Kashmir? The real wonder is why the New York Times would gleefully accept & broadcast this “Adored” description to the entire world. Actually it is a wonder only to those who doesn’t remember the virulent anti-Hindu hatred of Winston Churchill & British rule in India or the virulent anti-Jewish hatred of Nazi Germany.  

In the tradition of this Blog, we will ask for and seek the feedback of Ms. Geeta Anand, the New York Times Editors & CNBC to our opinions expressed above. Any feedback provided for publication will be printed verbatim. 

*pages 246-247 of Churchill’s Secret War

 

Send your feedback to editor@macroviewpoints.com Or @MacroViewpoints on Twitter   

2 Comments

  1. Tweeted link with follg:
    RJ ‏@karigar01:
    @MacroViewpoints shows @nytimes Hinduphobia via Hindu sepoys: Terrorists “Adorable” 2 NYT? via sepoy Geeta Anand
    ==========================================
    Glad to see their slick games are being seen thru more & more, even Trump shows them up for their ideological propagandist ‘news & views’

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ERROR: si-captcha.php plugin: securimage.php not found.