Question: What kind of reprobate "newspaper" would decide to extend a friendship-type courtesy to the jihadi bomber who murdered three Americans, and maimed and injured more than a hundred more, in the Boston Marathon attack?
Answer: The same reprobate "newspaper" that, for four years, has been acting as a volunteer PR firm for jihadi terror groups, and has been the West's largest facilitator of the cyber-jihad against the U.S. military, Israel and Jews: The Huffington Post.
The latest example --- this splash headline, from the morning of April 23:
"JAHAR"? Who is that? The surviving jihadi murder's name is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed last Thursday). So who is "JAHAR"?
Clicking through that headline to HuffPost's own story page reveals the following:
(...) Tsarnaev (whom friends called "Jahar") told authorities in writing that he and his brother discovered instructions for bomb-making on the Internet.
So, by HuffPost's own admission, it made the conscious decision to use a term of endearment in its splash headline, to refer to this monster. (We'll address the fact that this guy is a liar, and that HuffPost has been failing to cover vital facts concerning this bombing, in a future post.)
Is this another incident that HuffPost's senior officials like to chalk up to "accidents"? If it were the first, second, fifth or twentieth time that HuffPost chose to act as a shill on behalf of jihadi monsters, perhaps we could give it the benefit of the doubt.
The fact is that as we and our friends at HuffPostMonitor have been documenting for four years, if HuffPost isn't the jihadis' favorite online "newspaper," it should be. After all, it's now the world's #1 most-read online "newspaper" --- which has repeatedly, falsely claimed that it is "nonpartisan." Here are but a few recent examples of how HuffPost whitewashes and celebrates jihadis, yet suppresses the grim reality of what they say and do, while vilifying their enemies (the U.S. military, Israel and Jews):
Do you have thoughts on this matter? Share them with HuffPost's senior management, and its advertisers, who enable this madness to occur.
UPDATE: Examples of how HuffPost uses headlines to identify bad people, vs. good (except in the case of the surviving Boston bomber)
A few readers wrote in to ask why HuffPost's decision to use this savage's preferred nickname is such a big deal. If the above array of links don't convince you, here's some more indication of HuffPost's willingness to use first names only for those people it likes (as in the case of the jihadi savage featured in this article), versus those it doesn't. As a reminder:
“The editorial stance of the Huffington Post is to debunk the right-left way of thinking, which has become completely obsolete."
- Arianna Huffington
(1) Arianna versus Ben Carson, MD:
In this instance, contrast Arianna's continually plastering her face and media appearances all over HuffPost's front page, to its treatment of Ben Carson, MD, a black American who rose from poverty to become a celebrated neurosurgeon -- but made the mistake of speaking out on behalf of liberty; HuffPost doesn't even use his name. Instead, it smearingly dismisses him as being a "right-wing darling":
(2) "Michelle" versus an unnamed "GOPer":
A continuation of HuffPost's ongoing worship of Michelle Obama:
(2) "Michelle" versus an unnamed "GOPer" (Part 2):
A continuation of HuffPost's ongoing worship of Michelle Obama:
(4) The sexual perversions of a (Democrat) judge, versus the (evil) "GOPer":
Imagine if a Republican governor appointed a judge to the bench, and it was later discovered that he'd been having sex in his chambers, and had allegedly fathered a child with a plaintiff seeking... child support. Do you think HuffPost might have noted his party in the headline? In this instance, note that HuffPost makes no mention in its headline (or its story page) of the fact that Judge Wade McCree was appointed by a Democratic governor.
Starting to see a pattern here?
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment