How the Press lies About Iraq II--the case of the New York Times
Here from the morning's New York Times:
For years, there was a widely held belief that Britain's tolerance helped stave off any Islamic attacks at home. But the anger of London's militant clerics turned on Britain after it offered unwavering support for the American-led invasion of Iraq.
So: now the Times is into the blame-Iraq strategy. Where is the evidence that the pro-terrorist clerics of London needed the war in Iraq to turn them against Britain?
There is none.
And in fact, the evidence in the article indicates just the opposite:
Counterterrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain are supporters of Al Qaeda. Among that number, officials believe that as many as 600 men were trained in camps connected with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
So by the admission of the NYT itself: as many as 600 British Muslims had trained with Al Qaeda abroad even before September 11th.
No, the mullahs of Britain did not suddenly turn against Britain after September 11th--they'd been that way for a long time.
When the NYT suspends for a moment its pro-appeasement rhetoric, and lets the mullahs speak for themselves, the illusion is lifted:
Imran Waheed, a spokesman for a radical British-based group, Hizb ut Tahrir, which is allowed to function here but is banned in Germany and much of the Muslim world, said: "When Westerners get killed, the world cries. But if Muslims get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, it's the smallest of news. I will condemn what happened in London only after there is the promise from Western leaders to condemn what they have done in Falluja and other parts of Iraq and in Afghanistan."
And in Afghanistan.
Will the NYT ever learn?