September 23-25 were busy days at HuffPost! Within that three-day time frame, Arianna Huffington and/or her crack team of 53 "editors" made four decisions:
- To shill for al Qaeda, by depicting one of its top operatives as a victim, and by selectively editing a wire report to minimize her acts against the U.S.
- To publish an article decrying the sentence this al Qaeda operative was given, and containing inflammatory anti-U.S. military libels, for which there is zero proof
- To publish a blog article by the discredited Human Rights Watch, that dares to lecture Israel on "the rules of war" --- but doesn't mention any of Hamas's and Hezbollah's pathological war crimes
- To publish another fawning interview that its (HuffPost's) Middle East correspondent did with a top Hamas figure
When considered in the context of HuffPost's long, long, documented history of shilling for militant Islamists, while inciting and tolerating hatred against Israel and Jews (as well as the U.S. military), these incidents are but the most recent reasons why we allege it is the Western world's largest facilitator of the cyber-jihad*.
(*HuffPost is now the #1 most-read blog in the world, one of America's top ten news sites, and was named "the most powerful blog in the world" by The Guardian)
This blog article examines each of these incidents, one by one, in detail. If you come to share our outrage, and would like to voice your thoughts to HuffPost's senior management (politely please), here's how.
1) Sept. 23: HuffPost shilled for al Qaeda, by depicting one of its top operatives as a victim, and by selectively editing a wire report to minimize her acts against the U.S.
This shilling took the form of three acts by HuffPost:
- It crafted a headline that makes no reference to the fact that this terrorist is part of al Qaeda
- It matched this deceptive headline with an inflammatory picture that it knew, or should have known, would falsely depict her as having been tortured and raped by U.S. forces
- It selectively edited the copy provided by AP to downplay and omit certain key aspects of why she was wanted, what she'd done, and the fact the she denied that U.S. forces had tortured or raped her
On September 23, HuffPost published the story below at first on its front page. Soon thereafter, it moved the story to its World page, from which we obtained these screencaps:
A reasonable person would ask a few initial questions upon seeing this picture and headline: (1) Why would a "scientist" fire on U.S. troops? (2) And why would this poor woman, whom HuffPost chose to depict as a "victim" in this photograph, be sentenced to 86 years, if she didn't even kill anyone??
If you read HuffPost's version of the story, you'll discover, below, all the inconvenient truths that HuffPost neglected to mention in this "news" story and headline --- which it sourced, but selectively edited, from the AP:
At right is the picture of Affiya Siddiqui that the FBI used in its 2003 global alert, claiming she was among the U.S.'s most-wanted terror figures.
Why was she being sought? Because the architect of 9/11 attacks, Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed, who began singing like a bird after interrogations, revealed in 2003 that other al Qaeda operatives were in the U.S., planning terror attacks --- including Siddiqui. Combined with the fact that she was a U.S.-trained neuroscientist, meaning she could give al Qaeda the technical expertise to produce biological and chemical weapons, she became one of the most wanted women on Earth, from 2003 onward. More information, including the indictment against Siddiqui, is located at The Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Even MSNBC, not exactly a right-wing outlet, played the AP story "straight." Breitbart.com, run by HuffPost's original news editor, Andrew Breitbart, also played the story "straight."
It is only after reading the Breitbart version of the AP story that one realizes how much of the story HuffPost chose to omit in its version --- even though Breitbart's version was published three hours before HuffPost's went up. For example, all of the following was not included in HuffPost's version of the story:
Though she was not convicted of terrorism, the government has argued that Siddiqui is a cold-blooded radical who deserves a "terrorism enhancement" under federal sentencing guidelines that would guarantee a life term.
"She made it explicit, through her own words and her conduct, her intention to kill Americans, to cause `death to Americans,'" prosecutors wrote in court papers. Prosecutors cited threatening notes Siddiqui was carrying at the time of her detention.
They directly quoted one as referencing "a `mass casualty attack' ... NY CITY monuments: Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge," and another musing how a dirty bomb would spread more fear than death. They claimed the notes, along with the fact that she was carrying sodium cyanide, showed she wasn't an accidental menace.
Now, another question arises: After its deceptive headline and story copy, why would HuffPost decide to run that particular, sympathetic picture in its headline?
At the time HuffPost ran this story, it could have found out in a few keystrokes that this picture was taken right after she was shot, in 2008, by the U.S. soldiers and FBI agents whom she just attempted to murder. It is not, as militant Islamists and propagandists allege (below), a photo taken while she was being "tortured" and "raped" by U.S. forces. Yet as in the case of Pallywood fauxtography and propaganda, facts and context are the enemies of propagandists for militant Islamism --- whether they're Muslims themselves, or those who --- like HuffPost --- make the conscious decision to shill for them. Here's the proof:
The first image below is from a February 24, 2010 rally in Karachi, Pakistan,on her behalf. And note how, in the second image, it accuses U.S. soldiers of torturing and raping Siddiqui:
Now, consider that at the time HuffPost published its version of the story, even the Arab News (along with the AP) note that Siddiqui refuted these inflammatory allegations in open court, during her sentencing:
Siddiqui said she was particularly upset by overseas reports that she was being tortured in a US prison. She said she was actually being treated well. “I am not sad. I am not distressed. ... They are not torturing me,” she said. “This is a myth and lie and it's being spread among the Muslims.”
Yet HuffPost chose to selectively edit out that direct refutation --- and instead, put forth this... bullshit obfuscation:
She also tried to dispel rumors she was being tortured while in New York, and urged calm over her plight. "Tell the Muslims, please don't get emotional," she said, addressing reporters in the audience. "I'm OK. ... I do not want any violence in my name."
As the above documentation shows, HuffPost's editors made the conscious decision to ignore the vital facts and context that were available prior to its publishing this story, and to use this picture and carefully-edited words to depict Siddiqui as a victim, and merely a "scientist." Rather than being an isolated incident, this is merely the latest example of how HuffPost selectively edits news stories --- and particularly, pictures (1, 2, 3, 4) --- in a way that can only serve to shill for militant Islamists, and vilify Jews (namely, Netanyahu).
And as predicted, HuffPost's deliberate manipulation of this story incited a torrent of anti-U.S., Islamist-sympathizing user comments, which it reviewed, approved and decided to publish. See them here (Sept. 26 update: HuffPost has been cleaning up the thread).
All in all, could al Qaeda have asked for more from HuffPost than what it did to shill for the terror organization, today?
2) Sept 24: HuffPost published an article decrying the sentence this al Qaeda operative was given, and containing inflammatory anti-U.S. military libels, for which there is zero proof
On September 24, one day after Siddiqui's sentencing, HuffPost decided to publish this bloviating piece of inflammatory propaganda by Andy Worthington, replete with the libel that U.S. forces had tortured her. Excerpt (emphasis added):
Such a disproportionate sentence would be barbaric, even if Aafia Siddiqui had killed the soldiers she shot at, but as she missed entirely, and was herself shot twice in the abdomen, it simply doesn't make sense. Moreover, the sentencing overlooks claims by her lawyers that her fingerprints were not even on the gun that she allegedly fired, and, even more significantly, hints at a chilling cover-up, mentioned everywhere except at Dr. Siddiqui's trial earlier this year.
Seen this way, her sudden reappearance in Ghazni in July 2008, the shooting incident, the trial and the conviction were designed to hide the fact that, for five years and four months, from March 2003, when she and her three children were reportedly kidnapped in Karachi, she was held in secret U.S. detention -- possibly in the US prison at Bagram, Afghanistan -- where she was subjected to horrendous abuse.
Keep in mind that HuffPost published this diatribe two days after Siddiqui admitted in open court that she had not been abused, tortured or raped by U.S. forces.
But wait, didn't Arianna Huffington publicly claim, earlier this year, that she prohibited "inflammatory claims" and "conspiracy theories" from appearing at HuffPost? Why yes, she did:
[At HuffPost] there are guidelines that have to be followed -- and they include a prohibition on conspiracy theories or inflammatory claims. [...] For context, it's good to remember that Glenn Beck didn't come out of nowhere. He's the latest example of what the great historian Richard Hofstadter called "the paranoid style in American politics," which he defined as angry minds that traffic in "heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy..."
3) Sept. 24: HuffPost published a blog article by the discredited, militant Islamist shill group Human Rights Watch, that dares to lecture Israel on "the rules of war" --- but doesn't mention any of Hamas's and Hezbollah's pathological war crimes
Despite its noble-sounding name, Human Rights Watch has been thoroughly discredited as a rabidly anti-Israel partisan shill for militant Islamists, by numerous parties --- including HRW's co-founder. Following are some or the many articles that document the sordid reality of HRW --- including the fact that it solicited financial support from one of the world's most barbaric human rights abusers, Saudi Arabia, to help it continue its assault on Israel:
Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia - Seeking Saudi Money to Counterbalance 'Pro-Israel Pressure Groups'
Experts or Ideologues? (HRW's) Sarah Leah Whitson
Joe Stork, Senior Human Rights Watch Staffer, Supported Violence against Jews and Israel's Destruction
Given this foundation, and what it perpetrated in the prior days, it should come as no surprise that HuffPost welcomed and published the following anti-Israel diatribe by HRW's Bill Van Esveld:
Yes, War Does Have Rules
Excerpt (emphasis added):
In 2009, after Israel came under intense criticism for alleged laws-of-war violations during the military offensive in Gaza, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, rather than reaffirm Israel's commitment to these laws, ordered the government to consider "a worldwide campaign" to "amend" them, ostensibly "to adapt them to the spread of global terrorism." When such ambiguity leads to inadequate training and enforcement, it ill-serves Israeli soldiers and Palestinian non-combatants alike. It is essential for the Israeli military to teach its soldiers and commanders to reject behavior that is not just embarrassing to Israel and harmful to civilians, but illegal.
Note that throughout HRW's diatribe, it makes no mention of Hamas's or Hezbollah's pathological war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and children. It singles out and lambastes Israel for alleged crimes --- while ignoring the fact that it is about the only military in the world that notifies civilians to evacuate battle zones being targeted, in which the enemy wants to use them as human shields. For detailed information on Israel's ethics during war, versus Hamas's and Hezbollah's, see Answering The Libels
Update: As shown below, HuffPost preemptively shut off the comments feature on this particular thread --- something Ms. Huffington falsely claimed HuffPost does not do. Was this because it feared that informed users would expose the sordid reality of HRW --- and question why HuffPost would give a global platform for its propaganda against Israel?
4) Sept. 25: HuffPost published another fawning interview that its Middle East correspondent did with a top Hamas figure
Sharmaine Narwani is HuffPost's pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli Middle East correspondent. How biased is she? Take a look at the documentation our friends at Huffington Post Monitor have kept on her, and judge for yourself.
As we documented here, on August 31, 2010, HuffPost decided to publish on its front page an "interview" that Narwani conducted with Hamas's top propagandist that was so biased, it would be better suited to Hamas's website. How biased, you ask? Try this on for size: she actually asked this terrorist:
"Why, in your view, does the West not engage directly with Hamas and make you a partner to the solution?"
[As we documented here, mere hours after HuffPost published that interview, Hamas began targeting and attacking Israeli Jewish civilians, killing four --- including a mother of six who was nine months pregnant. Also, as documented here, this savage attack --- which was openly celebrated by Hamas and at least 3,000 Gazans ---- was followed up by two more which severely injured a rabbi and his wife, and a fourteen year old girl who suffered a potential brain injury. HuffPost decided to publish none of these stories. Instead, it chose to focus on what it decided were far more important matters... including a fistfight among women soccer players; a new resort for men and their electronic girlfriends; and its original reporting on a man who gave up a scheme to dance for his rent.]
On September 25, HuffPost published a second "interview" that Narwani did with this miscreant:
Khaled Meshaal Interview: A Hamas Take on Mideast Geopolitics (Part 2)
Narwani's opening paragraph, below (emphasis added) should give you a pretty good idea of how biased this "interview" was... and why Hamas chooses to allow HuffPost into its hive:
Palestinian resistance group Hamas has beaten some unusual odds to survive today: Israel's unlawful siege of Gaza has crippled the coastal strip's economy and left Hamas scrambling to govern a restless population living under increasingly desperate conditions[*]. Its officials and members are targeted by Israel and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) for detention, torture and extrajudicial killings. Pro-US Arab leaders undermine it at every turn, partly to satisfy American demands, partly because they fear the widespread popularity of any moderate Islamist resistance group among their own populations.
[* Ed.: We couldn't let this one go without commenting: See here for info on just how "desperate" the conditions are in Gaza; also note that according to a Sept. 22 report by a UAE journalist, no matter how much food and humanitarian supplies Israel sends to Gaza civilians, Hamas is stealing it.]
Say what you will about Hamas, it isn't stupid. It could offer to be interviewed on major U.S. news networks. But as bad as "old media" is, it would never allow a Hamas figure to escape being asked tough questions about its deliberate targeting of Jewish civilians for barbaric attacks, or its indoctrination of Muslim children to hate, and to hope to grow up to become suicide bombers.
To overcome this, Hamas could pay a U.S. firm to create an infomercial-style faux interview. But that costs real money, and who would watch it?
No, Hamas has discovered it can save all its money, and that HuffPost --- the #1 most-read blog in the world, and a top ten American "news" site --- will come to it, and conduct the journalistic equivalent of a Monica Lewinsky "pizza and cigar" session. Hamas knows that not a single tough question will be asked of it, and the "interviewer" is clearly siding with the terror group. And it doesn't cost them a cent. What a deal!!
Notably, HuffPost apparently couldn't find room on its front page or World page to publicize Hamas's recent threat to murder Gilad Shalit. Nor has it found room to discuss Hamas's recent murders, and threats of more carnage --- or its new, advanced rockets --- or the fact that it is stealing food and humanitarian supplies from Gaza civilians.
It did, however, find front-page space for more of Arianna's persistent self-aggrandizement:
Given all the above facts, and HuffPost's long, long history of publishing anti-Israel propaganda, and shilling for and seeking to protect militant Islamists from being publicly exposed for who and what they are, here's a question worth asking: Where does militant Islamists' propaganda end --- and where does HuffPost begin?
Perhaps, as Paul Mirengoff of Powerline recently suggested, this is all part of Arianna Huffington's "desire to market her site abroad, especially in the Middle East." Apparently, it's working --- because more than 350,000 of HuffPost's unique monthly visitors now originate in Muslim-majority nations. It has been and remains our contention that by perpetrating these acts, HuffPost is playing a vital role in the facilitation of the cyber-jihad --- in summary, the spreading and reinforcement of militant Islamist propaganda against the U.S. military, Israel and Jews.
If you share our view that HuffPost's actions in regard to the incidents documented above are reprehensible, we urge you to do two things:
(1) Make your voice known to HuffPost's senior management (politely, please), here
(2) Forward the link to this story along to others who support Israel