The New York Times: America %&*$@

[American_Jihad]

The New York Times Destroys Obama

January 3, 2014 by Caroline Glick

The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy.

Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional. Indeed, is far from clear that the paper even realizes what it has done.

...

Libyan militia warned US officials “of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi,” two days before the attack.

From his account, the initial attack — in which the consulate was first stormed — was carried out not by a mob, but by a few dozen fighters. They were armed with assault rifles. They acted in a coordinated, professional manner with apparent awareness of US security procedures.

During the initial assault, the attackers shot down the lights around the compound, stormed the gates, and then swarmed around the security personnel that ran to get their weapons, making it impossible for them to defend the ambassador and other personnel trapped inside.

According to Kirkpatrick, after the initial attack, the organizers spurred popular rage and incited a mob assault on the consulate by spreading the rumor that the Americans had killed a local. Others members of the secondary mob, Kirkpatrick claimed were motivated by reports of the video.

This mob assault, which followed the initial attack and apparent takeover of the consulate, was part of the predetermined plan. The organizers wanted to produce chaos. As Kirkpatrick explained, “The attackers had posted sentries at Venezia Road, adjacent to the [consulate] compound, to guard their rear flank, but they let pass anyone trying to join the mayhem.”

...

By failing to view as enemies any other terror groups — even if they have participated in attacks against the US – and indeed, in perceiving them as potential allies, Obama has failed to defend against them. Indeed, by wooing them as future allies, Obama has empowered forces as committed as al Qaida to defeating the US.

Again, it is not at all apparent that the Times realized what it was doing. But from Israel to Egypt, to Iran to Libya to Lebanon, it is absolutely clear that Obama and his colleagues continue to implement the same dangerous, destructive agenda that defeated the US in Benghazi and will continue to cause US defeat after US defeat.

The New York Times Destroys Obama | FrontPage Magazine

 

[JoeB131]

I dropped my subscription to the Times back in 1985

Probably because it had these things called "Words" in them that confused you.

 

[edthecynic]

the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats.

October 9, 2008
RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.

 

[blastoff]

Not sure if the NYT is suffering from MSNBC syndrome or MSNBC is suffering from NYT syndrome, but they're simultaneously achieving the same goals of shrinking audiences and corresponding ad revenue. And it's all due to their stridently lefty ideology and the bullshit they choose to wrap it in, which is obviously the reason folks are abandoning them. Yet they continue to march in spite of it. What's that familiar definition of insantiy again?

 

[editec]

Nazis, Hutu murderers, Japanese rapists, Americans at war: All pretty much the same.

The New York Times: America Sucks | FrontPage Magazine

A very valid complaint.

 

[American_Jihad]

the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats.

October 9, 2008
RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.

 

[American_Jihad]

New York Times Discredited on Benghazi


January 16, 2014 by Ryan Mauro

The New York Times’ conclusion that Al-Qaeda was not involved in the Benghazi attacks has been put through the shredder by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee. President Obama will appreciate parts of the report, but it is an overall indictment of the State Department and the administration’s public statements following the attacks.

The report concludes that the perpetrators included “individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM [Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb], Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP [Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] and the Mohammad Jamal Network.” The determination follows the State Department’s designating of both Libyan Ansar al-Sharia groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations for their involvement in the attacks.

The Times had portrayed the Benghazi attacks as the handiwork of only one of the Ansar al-Sharia groups and claimed it had no Al-Qaeda linkages. The Times even went so far as to falsely state that Al-Qaeda didn’t even successfully infiltrate Libya to begin with.

The first finding of the Committee is that there was “ample strategic warning” that U.S. facilities and personnel were threatened in Benghazi. It states:

...

Even if it is true that the intelligence community incorrectly told the administration that protests preceded the violence, that doesn’t disqualify the violence from being a terrorist attack. The administration made the decision not to publicly describe it as a terrorist attack, even when its own defense officials were doing so privately.

More specifically, it was a jihadist terrorist attack. Only Islamist ideology mandates violent retribution against all who criticize their faith. The reason the attack happened wasn’t the publication of a YouTube video. The reason was the commandments of Sharia.

New York Times Discredited on Benghazi | FrontPage Magazine

 

[blastoff]

I dropped my subscription to the Times back in 1985

Probably because it had these things called "Words" in them that confused you.

Or maybe he felt rather than reporting the news the Times was just making shit up to support an agenda. You know, like you do now and then.

 

[JoeB131]

I dropped my subscription to the Times back in 1985

Probably because it had these things called "Words" in them that confused you.

Or maybe he felt rather than reporting the news the Times was just making shit up to support an agenda. You know, like you do now and then.

Given how many times I've had to explain something to Frank three times and he still doesn't understand it, I'm going with my theory.

 

[edthecynic]

the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats.

October 9, 2008
RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.

Thank you for exposing yourself as a NeoNazi.

 

[American_Jihad]

October 9, 2008
RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.

Thank you for exposing yourself as a NeoNazi.

The plwl nazi backs yo boiy...

 

[American_Jihad]

A Blood Libel Every Day: The New York Times Does It Again
De-humanizing the Israeli victims of terrorism and over-humanizing the Palestinian aggressor-victims.
October 8, 2015
Phyllis Chesler

...

Oh, I do go on, don’t I? But I am convinced that just such lethal propaganda is what has led to the rise of the “new anti-Semitism” in the world; and that it has emboldened Palestinian Jihadists and all their enablers (the UN, the EU, Germany, Scandinavia, Western intelligentsia, the human rights groups) to attack Israeli civilians freely and at random, in packs, lynch mobs, and as lone Jihadists, not only in the West Bank and in Jerusalem, but also as they did today, in Kiryat Gat, in Petach Tikva, well within the “49 lines.”

As I have said, sadly, for years: The “settlement” that offends the Islamic world is not Jerusalem. It is Tel Aviv, Ashdod, Haifa—it is the Jewish presence in the Arab Middle East. Islamists mean to exterminate Christians, Jews, and all other infidels in order to cleanse all the land can occupy and re-occupy.

The New York Times is helping them do just that.

A Blood Libel Every Day: The New York Times Does It Again

 

[American_Jihad]

The God That Failed: 'New York Times' Discovers Government Can't Fix Evil

By Michael Walsh
December 3, 2015

First responders attend to people outside a Southern California social services center in San Bernardino, where one or more gunmen opened fire, shooting multiple people on Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2015. (KNBC via AP)

The editorial board of the New York Times struggles to come to grips with what happened yesterday in San Bernardino, and draws all the wrong conclusions:

There will be post-mortems and an official search for a “motive” for this latest gun atrocity, as if something explicable had happened. The ultimate question grows with each new scene of carnage: Are these atrocities truly beyond the power of government and its politicians to stop? That tragically has been the case as political leaders offer little more than platitudes after each shootout, while the nation is left to numbly anticipate the next killing spree.

The carnage in San Bernardino happened even as the nation was trying to come to grips with last week’s massacre in Colorado Springs, where three lives were taken and nine people wounded.

Yet, even as grief fills communities randomly victimized by mass shootings, the sales of weapons grow ever higher. Holiday shoppers set a record for Black Friday gun sales last week. They left the Federal Bureau of Investigation processing 185,345 firearm background checks, the most ever in a single day, topping the Black Friday gun buying binge after the shooting massacre of 26 people at a school in Newtown, Conn., three years ago.

Fox Butterfield, is that you?

Enough, already. Let's call this editorial what it is: pure propaganda, filled with non-sequiturs, emotional disinformation and general obtuseness to the reality of the threat America now faces:

• In fact, something perfectly explicable just happened.
• In fact, an attack from a foreign, hostile power (the Islamic ummah) is beyond the power of the government to stop unless and until it decides to stop it.
• In fact, the shootings in Colorado Springs are entirely unrelated to what happened in San Berdoo.
• In fact, the Black Friday gun sales record was rung up by honest citizens seeking a means to defend themselves, not by criminals bent on destruction.
• In fact, the FBI was not "left" to do anything except allow people to exercise their constitutional rights.
• In fact, the "gun-buying binge" does not presage another Sandy Hook; just the opposite.

More mush from the wimps of Times Square:

...

The God That Failed: 'New York Times' Discovers Government Can't Fix Everything

 

[American_Jihad]

s NH Voters Cast Their Ballots NYT Attacks Sanders in Favor of Clinton
Gray Lady plays defense for the other gray lady
2.9.2016
News
Brian Lille

It is well known that the Democrat Party establishment, including The New York Times, wants Hillary Clinton to win the party's nomination for 2016. It came as no surprise then that on the day New Hampshire voters cast their ballots, the NYT attacked Sen. Bernie Bernie Sanders.

David E. Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the paper, attacked the socialist senator for lacking foreign policy chops:

...

While it may not come as a shock, we thought it worth noting the latest obvious attempt by America's "newspaper of record" to sway the election in the direction it favors.


As NH Voters Cast Their Ballots NYT Attacks Sanders in Favor of Clinton

 

[American_Jihad]

New York Times: Hey Let's Turn Over Libya to a King
February 24, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

...

Here's the trouble with restoring the monarchy though, the Islamist militias are the ones with the guns, followed by the tribes. This is about centers of power. The various kings were mostly overthrown by the very same armies that the British had expected would maintain them. It's why the Saudis and other Gulfie royals have military forces run by their own family members. They may be worthless white elephants, but at least they won't turn on them. The Muslim Brotherhood is trying to take over the monarchies of Jordan and Morocco.

The left broke Libya and is now turning to every possible option, including this "Just raising the possibility" NYT piece about restoring the monarchy. But when you start out backing a reactionary fundamentalist Islamic organization. Supporting a constitutional monarchy is downright progressive.

But I have a suggestion. Forget any of the Senussi family. Let's pick a worthy New York Times editor, get him or her a nice shiny paper crown and then send him or her off to Libya to be king.

The progs insist on running this country like some hereditary nobility. Let's them try it for real in a part of the world where kings and tyrants get beheaded... and worse.

New York Times: Hey Let's Turn Over Libya to a King

 

[Agit8r]

Only went as far back as last century, huh?

 

[frigidweirdo]

America.

A country which things being great is invading other countries.
A place which has race problems, crime problems, gun crime problems, education problems, healthcare is just a way of making money, politics is entertainment.....

I'm not saying any country is perfect, clearly no country is. And there are much worse countries in the world, I've seen that first hand, however, the US could be much better.

Life for the average Joe (or Josephine) could be better. People are still having to fight for their rights, fight for what is right, yet so many people have forgotten what the principles of the country are, it's just a big mess.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

Say what?

What America did in Vietnam was an atrocity.

More then three million people died as a direct result of American actions.

I disagree. American involvement in Vietnam came about from good, if mistaken, motives. Atrocities by US forces were very much the exception. US Vietnam veterans deserve respect. More, much more, than the sainted JFK who got them into it.

Good motives? Like, trying to stop other countries deciding how they organize themselves politically?

 

[American_Jihad]

"No voy a subir"
...​

The New York Times still Lying about Fidel Castro
The Left's romance with a communist monster continues.
December 7, 2016
Humberto Fontova

“Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore the Constitution…but it amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, February 1957.)

“Fidel Castro, the fiery apostle of revolution who brought the Cold War to the Western Hemisphere in 1959 and then defied the United States for nearly half a century as Cuba’s maximum leader, bedeviling 11 American presidents…died on Friday. He was 90.” (The New York Times, Nov. 26, 2017)

In fact, the highlighted section of the New York Times headline from 2017 is every bit as BOGUS as the headline from 1957.

Oh…I know—know: that bit about “Fidel Castro defying 11 U.S. Presidents!” is hardly a New York Times exclusive. Indeed, the meme appears in practically every media mention of Fidel Castro. As a media chant it’s as obligatory as “Cuba’s free and fabulous healthcare!” –and the claim is every bit as facetious and idiotic.

Let’s have a brief (but fully-documented) look at this history of “defiance,” shall we.

”Without U.S. help Fidel Castro would never have gotten into power,” flatly stated former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba Earl T. Smith during congressional testimony in 1960. He refers to the U.S. State Department and CIA’s role in aiding the Castro rebels, also to the U.S. arms embargo on Batista, also to the official U.S. order that Batista vacate Cuba. Ambassador Smith knew something about these events because he had personally delivered the messages to Batista.

“Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except (Republican) ambassador Earl Smith.” (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba 1957’59, Robert Weicha.)

Castro’s “defiance” of the U.S. at the time also involved his group’s pocketing a check for $5,000 from the CIA operative in Santiago, Robert Weicha. “Me and my staff were all Fidelistas,” boasted Robert Reynolds, the CIA’s “Caribbean Desk’s “specialist on the Cuban Revolution” from 1957-1960.

After Batista fled and Castro grabbed power, the U.S. abruptly changed diplomatic modes alright: never in history had the U.S. accorded diplomatic recognition to a Latin American regime as QUICKLY as we recognized Castro’s. The U.S. gave Castro’s regime its official benediction more rapidly than it had recognized Batista’s in 1952, and quickly lavished it with $200 million in subsidies.

...

The New York Times still Lying about Fidel Castro

 

[American_Jihad]

New York Times Reporter Demands White House Censor "Fake News"
December 7, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

There's a lot of media shouting about "fake news" by which media types mean...

1. Satire

2. Clickbait sites that just make things up

3. Conservative sites or anyone who disagrees with their alternate reality

The shouting about "Fake News" has mostly been limited to the media, but it's pushing aggressively to turn this into policy. The creepy exchange between the New York Times' Gardiner Harris and Josh Earnest shows just how out of control this has gotten. When a White House spokesman from an administration often guilty of press censorship and intimidation has to explain the First Amendment to a Times reporter, that shows just how illiberal the left has become.

...

Gardiner is pushing for an incredibly disturbing level of intervention, but Earnest also says some rather troubling things including nudging social media companies, more gently, toward censorship.

This isn't a conversation that the government should be having. I remember the hysteria about Ari Fleischer's comments on Bill Maher. Now we've gotten to casual discussions about who should be doing the censoring.

New York Times Reporter Demands White House Censor "Fake News"