Gay Patriot Header Image

New York Times Fawns Over Islamists

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:36 am - September 26, 2006.
Filed under: Media Bias,War On Terror,World War III

I read this disgusting story in the Charlotte Observer’s Sunday paper.  I couldn’t find the link to it there, but this is the same story as published online by the Wilmington Star News.  Prepare to be outraged and on the verge of shock when reading this fawning, apologetic story about our enemies who have declared war on our nation. 

Islamists Calm Capital of Somalia With Restraint – Jeff Gettleman, New York Times News Service

It is hard to imagine that this is Mogadishu, the same Mogadishu of Black Hawk Down, and clan against clan and 15 years of unrelenting anarchy.

But over the past three months, the Islamists in control here have defied international expectations – in many ways. Not only have they done the unthinkable, pacifying one of the most dangerous cities in the world, they also seem to have moderated their message.

Instead of acting like the Taliban and ruthlessly imposing a harsh religious orthodoxy, as many feared, the Islamists seem to be trying to increase public support by softening their views, at least officially, delivering social services and pushing for democratic elections.

Islamic leaders are operating almost in campaign mode, organizing street cleanups, visiting hospitals, overseeing a mini building boom and recruiting elderly policemen to don faded uniforms they have not worn for years and return to work. Beyond that, they sent a letter this week to the U.N. Security Council pledging to support democratic rule.

“The world was so quick to label us,” said Ibrahim Hassan Addou, the foreign minister for the Islamic administration in Mogadishu. “All we are asking is to be judged on our deeds.”

Gee, it almost sounds like a CNN report from pre-2003 Baghdad.  Remember, when CNN covered up the truth in order to “gain access” to the Saddam regime?

Well then let us judge their deeds.  I wonder what Mr. Gettleman thinks of this development from his peace-loving Islamists………

Gunfire kills Somali boy as Islamists seize port – Reuters (h/t – Tammy Bruce)

Islamist fighters in the Somali port of Kismayo opened fire on Monday on residents who were burning tires, throwing stones and chanting to protest against the Islamist takeover of the city hours earlier.

A 13-year-old boy was shot dead while protesting, and two other people were injured as violence raged for several hours in Somalia’s third biggest city, witnesses said.

We have been taken over by extremists, the Islamic courts have taken us by force, and now they are firing at us,” said protester Dahabo Dirie.

 

Riding in trucks with machine guns, the Islamists guarded main streets and forbade gatherings after the protests eased.

The Mogadishu-based Islamists poured into Kismayo overnight to extend their grip on south-central Somalia and effectively flank the powerless central government on three sides.

Ministers accused the Islamists of mounting the offensive with fighters from Eritrea, Pakistan and Yemen.

There are foreign forces … which attacked Kismayo,” Somali Interior Minister Hussein Mohamed Farah Aideed told al Jazeera network.

Yeah, what nice and cuddly Islamists they are, eh, Mr. Gettleman? 

Never mind that American men and women are doing the same kind of reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan — without the terror and 9th Century-era laws and punishment.  But you will never as glowing a profile of our own American efforts from the MSM.  Nah, the NYT is too busy looking for fluff pieces about a successful Islamic armed takeover of a country. 

Great Britain, France… you are next!  Prepare to be assimilated.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

50 Comments

  1. Bruce, I think the reason why MSM like the NYT does these stories and takes these slants is that they still have a significant bias toward a Left-of-Center political, economic and social view of the world.

    You know it: the NYT is squarely of that persuasion. So is Mr Gettleman if you read his reporting on Darfur, Uganda, Somalia and the ultimate hat trick: his adoring worship of the Left’s newest darling, Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) while scouting out photo-ops in Africa this summer.

    Hey, Gettleman’s been harping on a story that plays to those LeftLiberal sympathies in him and back home: the alleged shooting of a black poacher by a WHITE Kenyan “aristocrat” of the Delameres family while caught poaching on land set aside as a Preserve and wildlife conservancy. It is pure LeftLiberal hatred of economic elites, ruling elites, etc.

    One of Gettleman’s more recent posts was on the attempted murder of Somali’s President Abdullah Yusuf by likely Islamic suicide bombers… Yusuf has long been an opponent of the Islamofascists, has fought the Mogadishu business community’s appeasement of the Islamofascists (for the false goal of economic stability)… the car bomb went off, Yusuf was in his $780,000 Mercedes limo “tank”, neither he nor the passengers inside were hurt but 8-11 innocents around the “tank” were killed last week.

    But you wouldn’t know that from reading his piece… he nearly indicts Yusuf for not getting with the program to bring peace to Somali even if it means appeasing the Islamofascist terrorists. Is that better than the warlords of old?

    Gettleman isn’t a reporter. He’s a journalist with a political persuasion seeking to find stories that match his political viewpoint. And the NYT will print it because it sells to their base.

    Same old, same old.

    Thanks for pointing out the latest example of a MSM gone further Left. Honestly, how many more stories do we need before the NYT is finally discredited as a news source?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 10:07 am - September 26, 2006

  2. Matt, all you have to do is look at former WaPo writer Thomas Edsall’s interview with Hugh Hewitt, where he ADMITS that the Fourth Estate (that’s the media, for you public school types) is violently leftist.

    Here’s the link:

    http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=2a63c078-2e33-46d8-b85a-a91a5257fca2

    But again, unless it is certified and verified by the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy et al, the libtards won’t believe it…if then.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 26, 2006 @ 1:31 pm - September 26, 2006

  3. Web Reconnaissance for 09/26/2006…

    A short recon of what?s out there that might draw your attention….

    Trackback by The Thunder Run — September 26, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - September 26, 2006

  4. maybe they are reporting this because that is what is happeneing there

    Comment by lester — September 26, 2006 @ 2:29 pm - September 26, 2006

  5. Unless you expect Jeffrey Gettleman to be prescient, the article from the NYTimes News Service was published in the NYTimes, prior to the Islamist activity in Kismayo, Somalia. According to the NYTimes Gettleman’s article that you cited was published in the NYTimes on Sunday, September 24, whereas the Islamist activity in Kismayo was on Monday, September 25. Moreover, Gettleman published an article, dateline September 26, on the Kismayo incident. What more would you want? That Gettleman consult a crystal ball before submitting copy?

    At some point, this becomes farcical. Don’t you do any checking before posting?

    Comment by raj — September 26, 2006 @ 2:34 pm - September 26, 2006

  6. raj, what part of “you aren’t worthy of debate” did you misunderstand or forgot?

    At some point your injections become farcical. Do you do any reading for comprehension before posting your meaningless drivel?

    Didn’t think so –at least you’re consistently wrong.

    Have you worked on that atonement exercise yet? Or do the ambulance sirens keep you away?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 2:50 pm - September 26, 2006

  7. #6 Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 2:50 pm – September 26, 2006

    raj, what part of “you aren’t worthy of debate” did you misunderstand or forgot?

    Poor dear. I’m not debating you. You debate yourself, witness your blo(g)viations on the comment thread down below about the Shrub malAdministration’s reduction of recruitment standards.

    On this issue, the facts are the facts, regardless of whether GP wants to ignore them and regardless of whether GP wants to seek them out.

    Comment by raj — September 26, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - September 26, 2006

  8. there used to be a website http://www.somalianarchy.com no it wasn’t a porn site. there are some libertarians who are on the anarchist side who sort of “adopted” somalia, which untill rcently had virtually no government. amazingly, stuff did get done there. they had a booming telecom industry and even a stable currency.

    Comment by lester — September 26, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - September 26, 2006

  9. Libertarian anarchists? Hoo-boy…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 26, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - September 26, 2006

  10. Lame. Name calling is the first sign that you have a weak argument. If the article was written before the coup, then there you have it. Also, what is so biased about this article?? The “islamofascists” (love that word) are going to hospitals and trying to win political support. DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU??? It really shouldn’t. Find something worth blogging. Like Sibel Edmonds and World Trade Center 7. Or Kissinger and Kean and the 9/11 Omission Report. Or even the stupid Democrats and their lack of vision, lack of power, lack of …oh wait, you can’t admit that they haven’t been in power for several years because you still want to BLAME THE SHITTY SITUATION our country is in on the losers!

    Comment by Robbie — September 26, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - September 26, 2006

  11. You go, Mary!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 26, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - September 26, 2006

  12. The NYT “fawns over Islamists” in more ways than one.

    That NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) from April, that the NYT leaked selected bits of, this past weekend? Turns out they were selective indeed. They plum forgot to mention all the parts supporting the Administration.

    For some smart analysis, try here and here:

    http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-you-wont-read-in-new-york-times.html
    http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-of-what-you-wont-read-in-nyt.html

    For the “Key Judgments” page of the NIE itself, try here:

    http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

    It comes down to this: Because we’re fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere – um, they’re feeling desperate and fighting back. (Stop the presses! What a newsflash! Who woulda thunk???! Producing such a result couldn’t possibly have been part of the reason we wanted to invade and liberate those two former al Qaeda sanctuary countries, could it?)

    As the NIE itself puts it: “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.” (OOPS – you mean there are jihadists in Iraq? That the Iraq war is, after all, part of the War on Terror?)

    Comment by Calarato — September 26, 2006 @ 6:58 pm - September 26, 2006

  13. calarato- your spinning it.

    Comment by lester — September 26, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - September 26, 2006

  14. raj, try selling it to the ambulance drivers… they’ll better led you to your next trial lawyer moment. Til then, get a clue… you lost so many debates –and you lost the last one on the military recruitment “scandal” about lowering standards… a non-starter and non-story if there ever was one.

    raj, you continue to miss your chance to atone for past sins. Get serious, this isn’t panning for clients in the hospital’s ER… there, your failures go largely unnoticed… here, you look the buffoon.

    It’s gotta hurt at some point to be so wrong, so often on so many things raj… even for the sociopath discussant like you.

    What is it with you? Is the farLeft so lonely these days you only dream about debating serious students on meaningful topics? Ahhh, I thought so.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 8:33 pm - September 26, 2006

  15. lester/keogh soxpuppets et al, I didn’t detect any spin in Calarato’s observations… you’ve been too close to Clinton to reallize the truth doesn’t need a spin.

    LOL.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - September 26, 2006

  16. #14 – lester – “your” not reading the stuff, or, just negating it ‘cuz you can’t handle it – I’d say nice try, but, it wasn’t – totally lame on your part – bye.

    Comment by Calarato — September 26, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - September 26, 2006

  17. #10 mary — September 26, 2006 @ 4:56 pm – September 26, 2006

    raj – can you tell me why Gettleman failed to mention this news, “Somalia: Jihad registration office to open in Mogadishu” published on the local Garowe Online at 12:04 on the 23rd of September, in his happy, shiny jihadis piece?

    Presumably, you have email. You might email him to ask him. You do know how to do that, don’t you?

    Aside from that, and aside from the fact that the article you cited is not necessarily on point to the issue that GP had made and that I had addressed, let’s see. According to GP’s cited article from Reuters, it was foreign fighters who were attacking Kismayo. And according to your cited article, the office to be opened in Mogadishu was intended to register fighters for a jihad against foreign troops. I take that as meaning that the office was to register troops to fight against foreign fighters, including those who might have been attacking Kismayo. Do you really have a problem with that?

    Yee gads, can’t you people do critical analysis?

    Thanks for the link, though. I’ll take a look at that web site every once in a while.

    Comment by raj — September 27, 2006 @ 7:23 am - September 27, 2006

  18. the raj/ian writes: “Poor dear (Mi-Matt). I’m not debating you.”

    I don’t think I said we were debating each other; you’re beyond the pale, remember? Maybe it’s a little fanciful dreaming on your part to get in on some debate licks from me, maybe?

    Get serious, raj. Time to finally do those atonement exercises you’ve put-off. Get focused, you can do them.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 27, 2006 @ 10:27 am - September 27, 2006

  19. Matt, don’t waste your breath. Sockpuppet #1 (rajiansybilevabraun) won’t atone, and neither will #2 (lesterkeogh401kplan) for their misdeeds. They’ll continue to rant, rave, spin, obfuscate, deny and contradict the way Master Sockpuppet and Mrs. Rodham-Sockpuppet do all the time.

    Poor things. It must be tough living a shallow, meager existence like that.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 27, 2006 @ 10:43 am - September 27, 2006

  20. Out of Iraq…

    The question of ‘should we stay or should we go’ might be easier to answer if we took a look at the larger picture. What are groups like al Qaeda up to in other parts of the world, and what are we doing to stop them?

    What is……

    Trackback by Dean's World — September 27, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - September 27, 2006

  21. Has this new Islamic governing force in Somalia (i’m not going to call it the Somali government yet at this point) instituted Sharia Law?

    Obviously, the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist government in Somalia would be a concern. I think we must do what is nessecary to make sure that doesn’t happen. It would be in America’s best interest to make sure Somalia doesn’t go the route of Afghanistan, going from failed state to terrorist training camp.

    Comment by Chase — September 27, 2006 @ 3:27 pm - September 27, 2006

  22. chase- what if getting involved would make things worse?

    Comment by lester — September 27, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - September 27, 2006

  23. Typical negative libtard worldview. If America gets involved, it invariably gets worse.

    Only if the RAT party is in charge, in my opinion.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 27, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - September 27, 2006

  24. Wow this thread really highlights that rajian and their clan truly are Islamist apologists!

    Simply astounding.

    Do you guys get paid by CAIR?

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — September 27, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - September 27, 2006

  25. peter- what is wrong with having a negative world view? do conservatives have a positive world view? they didn’t during the cold war? .what does that even mean a negative world view? what is the RAT party? I didn’t support the first somalia intervention or kosovo!

    bruce- what wrong with CAIR?

    Comment by lester — September 27, 2006 @ 5:46 pm - September 27, 2006

  26. #24 Bruce (GayPatriot) — September 27, 2006 @ 5:19 pm – September 27, 2006

    Do you guys get paid by CAIR?

    Given that I don’t know what “CAIR” refers to, obviously I don’t get paid by CAIR.

    On the other hand, one might seriously wonder how much you guys get paid by PissPoorMedia (a/k/a “pajamas media”). Do you want to tell us?

    No? Didn’t believe that you would.

    Comment by raj — September 27, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - September 27, 2006

  27. #20 mary — September 27, 2006 @ 11:38 am – September 27, 2006

    raj – ye gads, can’t you read?

    Um, yes, I can read. Apparently you cannot. Re-read the post, re-read my comments, and stop emoting. Everything in my comment was accurate in regards the post and your link. It is unfortunate that you are unable to recognize that, but them’s the facts.

    Learn how to read, please.

    Comment by raj — September 27, 2006 @ 6:16 pm - September 27, 2006

  28. Usual libtard refrain – either plead ignorance, or get vitriolic and attack the questioner. And throw in a little egotism and lofty arrogance to boot.

    You guys are so f@#%ing predictable.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 27, 2006 @ 10:47 pm - September 27, 2006

  29. #27 So RajIan doesn’t know what CAIR is. How refreshing to see him/them confess their remarkable ignorance of current affairs. Good for you! Honesty is always the best policy.

    Of course it makes sense that one who uses a German travelog written by an Englishman specializing in French culture (Germany and the Germans) as a primary source about Allied WWII bomb damage would be so woefully uninformed.

    To avoid such embarassing situations in the future, my suggestion is to spend a little time actually reading fact based materials before commenting at a site frequented by a number of well educated and informed persons like GP.

    Comment by BoBo — September 28, 2006 @ 12:26 am - September 28, 2006

  30. #30 BoBo — September 28, 2006 @ 12:26 am – September 28, 2006

    So RajIan doesn’t know what CAIR is.

    No, raj doesn’t know what CAIR is. A short google search for “CAIR” yields the following:

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR: Home Page

    CAIR: California Association for Institutional Research

    CAIR: ‘Moderate’ friends of terror – article by Daniel Pipes (DPipes is an idiot, btw, but his father Richard was not)

    EPA: Clean Air Interstate Rule

    Council on American-Islamic Relations – Wikipedia, the free

    CAIR – Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

    CAIR-California

    and

    CAIR – Canadian Association of Interns & Residents

    And those are only on the first page of a google search regarding CAIR.

    Now, you tell me. What is “CAIR” in the post supposed to refer to? I recognize that you Mighty Righties do not like to cite to sources, but, at some point, your refusal to do so becomes ridiculous.

    You should feel free to return to Jellystone park and pick up pic-a-nick baskets with your buddy YogiBear.

    Comment by raj — September 28, 2006 @ 6:19 am - September 28, 2006

  31. Everything in my comment was accurate in regards the post and your link.

    Saying “I’m right” does not make it so. The average toddler usually discovers this by the time they’re 3

    Comment by mary — September 28, 2006 @ 9:06 am - September 28, 2006

  32. He means the Council on Islamic American Relations,

    and say Hi to Dwayne and Rerun for me, “Raj”.

    Comment by Attmay — September 28, 2006 @ 9:19 am - September 28, 2006

  33. #31, my mistake: should be Council on American-Islamic Relations. Sorry.

    Comment by Attmay — September 28, 2006 @ 9:34 am - September 28, 2006

  34. http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

    Read this.

    Comment by keogh — September 28, 2006 @ 11:23 am - September 28, 2006

  35. #33 – And just to be fair and balanced, O Libtard of the Multiple Identities, you should read this:

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JacobSullum/2006/09/27/dont_blame_canada

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 28, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - September 28, 2006

  36. #29 RajIan – If you read #23, the word Islamic comes up in the first sentence. Later there is the reference to CAIR. The fact that you seem unable to discern through context the CAIR referred to on a list (provided by you) including the following

    CAIR – Canadian Association of Interns & Residents
    CAIR – Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
    CAIR: California Association for Institutional Research
    The Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR: Home Page

    is quite remarkable. It does however offer a clear insight into why you seem unable to grasp so many of the concepts discussed here.

    In your defence, you do seem to have a working knowledge of cartoons. My advice to you is to stick with discussing what you know. Tha way you will able to avoid the confustion and frustration that are reflected in so many of your posts here.

    Comment by BoBo — September 28, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - September 28, 2006

  37. BoBo’s got raj’s tune and he’s playing up loud. Good points, BoBo.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 28, 2006 @ 3:16 pm - September 28, 2006

  38. #30 mary — September 28, 2006 @ 9:06 am – September 28, 2006

    Saying “I’m right” does not make it so.

    Maybe not, but questioning your claim that you are right puts it into “your court” requires you to provide evidence that you are right. Otherwise, your claim that you are right basically falls on deaf ears.

    And so, your evidence that you are right is—what?

    Comment by raj — September 28, 2006 @ 5:33 pm - September 28, 2006

  39. #31 Attmay — September 28, 2006 @ 9:19 am – September 28, 2006

    He means the Council on Islamic American Relations…

    That’s interesting to know. Now, since–unlike some of you all–I do not claim to be a mind reader, how is anyone supposed to know that? Merely because you claim to know that? Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. Aside from that, you didn’t seem to know that, either, given your #32.

    Comment by raj — September 28, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - September 28, 2006

  40. #35 BoBo — September 28, 2006 @ 1:09 pm – September 28, 2006

    Poor Bo-Bo. Aren’t there any pic-a-nic baskets in Jellystone park for you and Yogi to grab?

    Let’s understand something. I, for one, am not going to try to read someone’s possibly non-existent mind to try to figure out what he or she is referring to. If someone wants to make use of an acronym, he, or she, should indicate what the acronym refers to in a comment.

    Capiche?

    Comment by raj — September 28, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - September 28, 2006

  41. Oh great, linking him to a TV character whose name doesn’t even match his (Boo Boo the Bear). How’s the meatloaf milkshakes at Rob’s Place, “Raj”? How’s Shirley the waitress, from whom you obviously learned your “debate” tactics, these days?

    Comment by Attmay — September 28, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - September 28, 2006

  42. Funny how some blame others for their own ignorance. Capiche?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 28, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - September 28, 2006

  43. #39 RajIan – Do you understand what the word context means? If so re-read #’s 24, 28 & 35 and your confusion regarding this discussion will be lifted. If not, I fear that you may need to spend less time here and more at the Cartoon Network which seems to be a better fit for your intellectual abilities.

    Comment by BoBo — September 29, 2006 @ 12:41 am - September 29, 2006

  44. Poor babies. Presumably, Bruce (GP) knows how to link. He does so in his posts. Query why he did not do so in #23. Was he too lazy to do so?

    Maybe PPM (PissPoorMedia) pays him by the post, but not by the comment.

    Comment by raj — September 29, 2006 @ 6:37 am - September 29, 2006

  45. For your information, RajIan, it is PJM, not PPM — as is outlined in the title of this post, which is in large red and bold print.

    In short, I see no reason for GP to waste links on you until you demonstrate that you can read them intelligently in the first place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - September 29, 2006

  46. WTF is raj even talking about with regard to Comment #23?

    Is there a doctor in the house? Preferably one with experience working with mental illness?

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - September 29, 2006

  47. Oh and raj, PJM doesn’t pay me by the post, they pay me by traffic.

    So thank you for your trolling here…. it is putting pennies in my pocket each time.

    LOL LOL LOL

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - September 29, 2006

  48. WTF is raj even talking about with regard to Comment #23?

    Sorry, refer to comment #24. No links.

    Comment by raj — September 30, 2006 @ 9:02 am - September 30, 2006

  49. #47 RajIan and cabalofthelowercase, keep posting A LOT so that Bruce gets paid a much as possible. We will continue to ignore or mock your Cartoon Network level comments as they warrant.

    Comment by BoBo — September 30, 2006 @ 10:55 am - September 30, 2006

  50. Hey, my 10 year old resents the slam on Cartoon Network… it isn’t as idiotic as raj. That’s just not fair to the cartoons.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 2, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - October 2, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.