It’s why they’re referred to as the New York Slimes, all the news fit to wrap fish in.

saudi flag

If he was a ”favored son” he would never have been thrown to the chopping block. The NYT spews Saudi propaganda to polish a shine on barbaric, discriminatory and very arbitrary, sharia law.


BEIRUT, Lebanon — Saudi Arabia on Tuesday executed a member of the royal family for murder, the first time in four decades it had done so, after he was convicted of shooting another man to death during a brawl.

Prince Turki bin Saud bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabeer was put to death in the capital, Riyadh, according to a report by the Saudi state news service. While the report did not detail the method used, most death penalties in Saudi Arabia are carried out by beheading in a public square.

The rare event rocketed around the kingdom’s social media networks, with some Saudis saying they never imagined such a thing would happen and others arguing that it showed the quality of their justice system, which follows a strict interpretation of Shariah law and is often criticized by human rights groups and Western governments for what they consider harsh and arbitrary punishments.

“The greatest thing is that the citizen sees the law applied to everyone, and that there are not big people and other small people,” Abdul-Rahman al-Lahim, a prominent Saudi lawyer, wrote on Twitter.

Other Saudis lauded the monarch, King Salman, on Twitter under an Arabic hashtag that translated as, “Decisive Salman orders retribution for the prince.”

More here.

NOTE: He’s the brother of princess Deema Turki al-Saud, the same Saudi inbred who sent her attack dog lawyers against the Tundra Tabloids some years ago, for publishing an interview of a British woman who was in her service for 10 years, who witnessed her alleged horrendous behavior towards her staff during that time period.


It’s why they’re called the ”New York Slimes”……


This story does not fit the narrative of The New York Times.

Palestinians defrauding other Palestinians, Palestinians stealing from good will Westerners and exploiting their own people by not giving them money raised on their behalf, is not a story the Grey Lady tells.


Why reporting on corruption ends if Palestinians are involved.

On Wednesday, August 3rd The New York Times stumbled onto a story of corruption and the misuse of funds.  In typical fashion, once more details emerged, they let their scoop flop.

The NYT story begins innocently enough in Australia where the writer starts up a conversation with an Australian cop.  After exchanging a few pleasantries the Australian finds out that the writer covers the Middle East.  Brendan, the cop, recalls that years earlier, through a Christian charity called World Vision, he had become a “sponsor” for a kid named Othman in the Palestinian village of Husan. Over the years he sent the boy $39 dollars a month – amounting to “at least $1,100, along with Christmas and Easter cards”.   There was never a response from the Palestinian youngster. In a later email to the NYT writer, Diaa Hadid, Brendan wrote, “My curiosity has got the better of me.  If you could ask around in your travels, I’d love to know that he is OK.”

Hadid went out in search of the boy.  The family exists, but they never ever received any money and, in fact, had no idea that it had ever been sent.  They did recall that someone had come around and taken pictures of children when Othman was a youngster.  And it turns out that, according to the man who managed the local World Vision program, “At one point, every newborn was put up for sponsorship”.

At one point, Hadid wonders:  “So had I uncovered a scandal in which a well-meaning foreigner, lured by an adorable child’s needy face, sent money to an organization that failed to deliver it to its promised recipient?  Not exactly.” (Hadid is not known for her love of Israel)

On Thursday August 4th, the very next day, unrelated to the story in The New York Times, the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) sent out a long and detailed press release about the arrest of a Hamas operative who had infiltrated an international charity named World Vision and siphoned very large sums of money and resources and directed it to Hamas over the course of many years.  According to the press release, “on behalf of the military wing of Hamas” Mohammed El-Halabi, director of the Gaza Branch of World Vision “had exploited the organization’s budget and resources for Hamas.”

The GPO explains that World Vision is an American NGO and receives support from the UN and Western governments.  It also says that “El-Halibi is actually a major figure in the terrorism/military arm of Hamas”.

So in answer to the reporter’s question – yes!  A scandal had been uncovered! Which leaves us with a big question of our own.

Other than a re-work of the GPO press release which puts more emphasis on the fact that neither Mr. Halibi nor the aid group “have had a chance to review the evidence and respond to specific charges” than it does to the wrong that was done to the people of Gaza, why didn’t The New York Times run big time with their scoop instead of just dropping it and making believe they hadn’t covered a similar scandal about the same organization just the day before?

More here


The more Muslims are let into the country, the more the Left gets uppity and unleashes its pent up Jew hatred.


Daniel Greenfield

Semi-professional Vox liar Max Fisher has moved up to the New York Times, which is already embarrassing itself on a regular basis by running Electronic Intifada rants celebrating racist Muslim attacks on Jews by Diaa Hadid.

Max Fisher is not Vox’s most famous Israel expert. That would be Zack Beauchamp who claimed that there was a bridge between Gaza and the West Bank. But Max Fisher is certainly viler than Zack. There’s the time he blamed Jewish teens who had been kidnapped and murdered by Hamas… for being kidnapped and murdered by Hamas.

“As children, the kidnap victims surely cannot and should not be held personally culpable, but they could be considered an extension of the occupation, which has been far from a peaceful endeavor,” Fisher writes.

This is one of those classic “it would be wrong to say the thing I’m saying, but I’ll say it anyway”. This is the kind of sociopathic hatred that the New York Times is bringing on board.

More here.



New York Times Reports On Muslim Proselytizing During Charlie Hebdo Attack, Then Deletes It

When Islamic terrorists expressly tell their victims why they’re being attacked, our mainstream media will do anything to cover it up. They’ll change the subject, they’ll blame the victims… they’ll even stealth-edit* their own copy.

Here’s the latest example of the New York Times censoring itself to avoid offending Muslims after an act of Islamic terror. This morning, BenK at Ace of Spades quoted an NYT story by Liz Alderman titled “Survivors Retrace a Scene of Horror at Charlie Hebdo.” Take note of these two paragraphs from that story:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

Now the NYT’s scrubbed out version:

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

More here at Daily Caller.



Great pick up by Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist, it’s obvious that the NYT hasn’t the sharpest stalk working their desk. H/T: A Man With A Funny Bone.


And in the spirit of Thanksgiving, the Tundra Tabloids sends Jodi Rodoren a wonderful celery recipe that she can stuff her bird with, if she’s actually into that sort of thing.

celery thanksgiving



It’s al-Qaida, Islamic State and any other Islamic organization that flies the pirate jihadi flag, the end game is their shared goal, it matters little which one is carrying it out.

al qaida Islamic state pirate flag

It’s great that the Legacy Media (lame-stream) are finally opening their eyes (somewhat), but Lori Lowenthal Marcus hit this dead on the money over a year and a half ago, May 2013, in relation to the Boston bombings by the Tsarnaev brothers.

Online Jihadi ‘Mein Kampf’ Urging: ‘Attack Sporting Events’

The global jihadi masterminds endorse a new style of operation, particularly for those in the non-Muslim world arena: small cells, few connections, low cost munitions and high density, high profile crowds. “It’s the al Suri Strategy come home to roost.”

abu Musab al Suri a/k/a Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, once al Qaeda's no.4, released by Syria last year to get back at U.S. for backing Syrian rebels, possible source of motivation for Tsarnaevs' terrorism

abu Musab al Suri a/k/a Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, global jihadi strategist, author of the ‘Jihadi Mein Kampf’

We live in a world profoundly confused about how, when and whether to assign blame when terrorists hurt innocent people. More here.

Attacks in West Raise New Fears Over ISIS’ Influence

CAIRO — The British police arrest four men accused of plotting a bombing on the scale of the Mumbai hotel attack six years ago. The Australian authorities arrest a ring of 12 accused of plotting daring murders, including a public beheading.

In Canada, a gunman assaults the Parliament building and kills a soldier guarding a war memorial, and a motorist strikes two soldiers, killing one — in both cases, perpetrators with tenuous links to Islamist extremism.

And in New York City, a man wielding a hatchet attacks four police officers in Queens, slashing one in the head and another in the arm.

The series of episodes over just the last four weeks is raising new fears about the capacity of the extremists who call themselves the Islamic State to catalyze so-called lone-wolf attacks, conceived and carried out by individuals or small groups around the Western world who may have little or no connection to the Islamic State.

There is no evidence that any of the episodes were carried out by any centrally organized terror network. But in each case the violence was plotted or executed by individuals moved by the messages of Islamist extremists, and all took place in the one month since the Islamic State began exhorting Muslims in the West to commit such acts.

“The Al Qaeda ‘fan boys’ never did this, definitely not in so coordinated a fashion in so close a time,” said William McCants, a scholar of Islamist militancy at the Brookings Institution.

More here.



This interview was recently published at INN, and republished here with the author’s consent.




Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Ricki Hollander and Gilead Ini

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldThe New York Times (NYT) is guilty of advocacy journalism. Both its editorial pages and news reporting lean heavily toward an anti-Israel perspective. This is in blunt contravention of its directive to journalists in the Ethical Journalism handbook it publishes, ‘to cover the news as impartially as possible’ and ‘tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it.’

Without employing the type of crude incitement against Israelis that is rampant in Palestinian society, the NYT poisons the public’s mind against Israel by shaping the perception of the Jewish state as responsible for many, if not most, of the region’s ills. It does this with double standards in reporting about Israel versus her enemies and recounting only half the story. It sanitizes the role of Israel’s adversaries, including terrorist organizations, and obsessively indicts Israel at every turn.

Ricki Hollander and Gilead Ini are senior analysts at CAMERA, where they co-authored the major long-term studyIndicting Israel: New York Times Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. 

In addition to news coverage, CAMERA’s study looked at the newspaper’s opinion pages over a period of 9 months in 2011-2012. NYT editorials are written by a board of journalists who adhere to an apparent formula in their columns about Israel. First they pay lip service to Israel’s right to defend itself. Then after the ‘but,’ they devote the bulk of the column to condemnation of any self-defensive action by Israel. They ignore facts, statistics, and anything else that would provide readers with a deeper understanding of, or sympathy for Israel’s actions.

“We found that 6 out of 7 NYT editorials addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict were negative toward Israel, while none were positive. Opinion columns by NYT staff followed the same pattern of condemning Israel: 5 out of 6 were negative toward Israel, while none were positive. As for invited Op-Eds on the topic, 15 out of 20 were negative toward Israel, while only one was positive.

“An earlier 19-month CAMERA study conducted in 2006-7, also found a preponderance of columns critical of Israel, many of which were written by Arab leaders and even some by a Hamas representative. By contrast, there were no columns by any Israeli leaders.

“In the past, there were columnists who wrote positively about Israel, namely William Safire and Abe Rosenthal. But since their retirement and passing, there is no one to balance the largely negative opinion of Israel on the newspaper’s editorial pages.

In the global context, Israel faces discrimination through NYT’s disproportionate scrutiny of its conflict. The paper also holds the Jewish State to a much harsher standard relative to the Palestinians. Author Virgil Hawkins in his book Stealth Conflicts, shows that the media’s focus on Israel came at the expense of reporting on conflicts up to a thousand times more deadly than ones between Israel and its neighbors.

“The newspaper’s disproportionate focus is also reflected in its headlines. Our study identified 12 headlines implicating Israel for killing Arabs. None implicated Arabs, although 14 Israelis were killed by Arabs during the same period.

One among many examples of the NYT’s double standards can be found in its disparate treatment of violent attacks. When in 2012, several Jewish teens beat an Arab teenager in Jerusalem resulting in injuries that required hospitalization, the newspaper covered the story on its front page above the fold. The attack was framed as reflecting negatively on Israeli society as a whole. A second front page story informed readers that the attack, ‘revealed festering wounds regarding race, violence and extremism.’ Has there ever been a beating by teenage thugs anywhere else in the world that made the front page of the NYT twice?

Contrast this with the newspaper’s treatment in 2011 of a gruesome massacre perpetrated by Palestinian teens in the Israeli town of Itamar. The NYT buried news of this murder of a Jewish couple and three of their young children, including a three-month old girl, deep inside the paper. Nor did any articles about the attack focus on what it indicated about Palestinian society’s morals and racism.

The NYT‘s news pages are, at times, indistinguishable from its opinion pages. In one month, the NYT used the following subjective and hostile adjectives about Israeli leaders in its news reporting: ‘shrill,’ ‘strident,’ ‘stubborn,’ ‘abrasive,’ and ‘cynical.’ One reporter asked ‘whether Israel is guilty of “hopeless hypocrisy”’ because the country opposes nuclear enrichment by Iran, a country sworn to Israel’s destruction.

Unfortunately, turning to the NYT’s public editors (ombudsmen) is not a solution. Their columns tend toward general platitudes about the conflict being a hot-button issue that generates criticism ‘from both sides,’ as they equate thoughtful and evidence-based complaints with those of Israel’s most virulent and hateful enemies, for whom nothing is anti-Israel enough.

To inform passersby of NYT’s extreme bias, CAMERA has hung up a large billboard on a building opposite the newspaper’s editorial offices in Manhattan.”




The New York Slimes being the New York Slimes.

What they’re doing is throwing whatever they can to see what will stick. Banking on the relatively short attention span of the American public, they’re betting that they can reinvent the facts on the ground. For today’s Democrats, ideology always trumps what’s right.

new your slimes


by TONY LEE 31 Dec 2013, 4:35 PM PDT 

The New York Times had a reporter talking to attackers on the ground during the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans in September of 2012, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and may know the identity of some the murderers and perpetrators.

David Kirkpatrick, the Times reporter who wrote the story that forced the paper’s Editorial page editor to defensively declare on Monday that it has not chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, said that the paper had a reporter on the ground who was witnessing the attacks.

That admission is even in Kirpatrick’s story, which, as Breitbart News reported, has received considerable blowback for attempting to “whitewash the Benghazi tragedy” by alleging that there was no al-Qaeda involvement in the attacks that killed four Americans (contradicting the paper’s own reporting), murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had “little understanding” of the region, and the terrorists were motivated by an anti-Muhammed YouTube video:

Soon scores, if not hundreds, of others were racing to the scene. Some arrived with guns, some with cameras. The attackers had posted sentries at Venezia Road, adjacent to the compound, to guard their rear flank, but they let pass anyone trying to join the mayhem. Witnesses said young men rushing inside had left empty pickup trucks from Ansar al-Shariah, but also all the other big militias ostensibly allied with the government.

There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

More here.

Video H/T: Weasel Zippers


 New York Slimes, all the news fit to wrap fish in.

new york slimes

Check out the second paragraph in an article reporting about conservative challengers ‘lining up’ to run against Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina: nyt lindsey graham has chllengers for senate primary  26.8.2013

LAKE WYLIE, S.C. — Some of the early shots in the Republican primary battle against Senator Lindsey Graham have been fired from this tiny community on the northern border of the state where the Civil War began.

A small group called Carolina Conservatives United, one of dozens organized loosely under the flag of limited government, low taxes and strict adherence to the Constitution, sent out images last week of a milk carton bearing Mr. Graham’s face and asked Gov. Nikki R. Haley to issue the state’s version of an Amber Alert to find its missing senator.

This is an exact example of the lib (legacy) media’s ingrained bias against conservatives and their reluctance to take the constitution seriously except when they can engineer maneuvers around it. Anyone knows that a contract reads what it says, and adhering to the words of the contract is just that, adherence.

Only dopes who think that the constitution is a ‘living and breathing’ document, could read into mere adherence, as being ”a strict adherence” to it. It’s a question of whether you adhere to it, or being in violation of it, nothing more, nothing less.



Uh, swamp monster is the first thought that comes to mind when thinking about Jodi Rudoren, J’lem corespondent for the New York Slimes.

NOTE: Does she have a transgendering thing going on? If she does I can’t tell what she’s transing from or to.


I believe that if Swampy was driving her car on a highway in Israel, and a Palestinian Arab teen was waiting on a bridge with a chunk of concrete to drop on her car as she drove by, she couldn’t care less whether it was an Israeli bullet or missile strike that stopped the perp. Do you see the illogic in her thinking?

Seems that ‘Swampy’ likes to defame people pointing that out. Tundra Tabloid friend and fellow pro-Israel blogger at Israellycool informs me of teh following situation:

Defamation By Jodi Rudoren Of The New York Times

Brian of London | Aug 06, 2013 | 4 comments

defamation |ˌdɛfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n|noun [ mass noun ]

the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel: she sued him for defamation.

I feel I was defamed in a Facebook comment yesterday by Jodi Rudoren of the New York Times. Her comment has now formed a central plank in direct and unfounded attacks on my character. I am now being accused by others of calling for child murder: in effect a modern blood libel has sprung from her ill thought out comment.

Jodi Rudoren asked me “to refrain from violent, threatening messages.”  I made no such threats. Here’s the context.

I would like a public retraction from Jodi Rudoren on Facebook.

Yesterday I followed a link from Facebook to an article in the New York Times. I wrote about that yesterday. I left several comments on the public Facebook post of the NYT’s Israel correspondent, Jodi Rudoren. Here is the first comment I left:

Brian John Thomas Their pride and conceit in attempted murder comes through nicely. As I’ll be driving past his village in a few hours I do hope the “hero” of your piece can be shot and killed someday soon.
Brian John Thomas Ami, killing a self-confessed attempted murderer before he can kill is not murder. It couldn’t be a more clear case of getting up early to kill your avowed enemy before he kills you. I have to deliver a computer to someone right next to his village today. This is not remote or theoretical for me. I’m driving right past where this kid tries to kill people. I want him not to kill me or anyone else. If he has to be buried to stop this, so be it.

Tundra Tabloids: For this opinion, which I wholeheartedly agree with, Brian is defamed by Rudoren as promoting violence.

Read more on it here at Israellycool.



No one does this with any other state.

Those Jews who judge the New York Times by the standards of Judaism believe that the creation of the state of Israel was one of the few redeeming events in a century of blood and shame, one of the greatest affirmations of the will to live ever made by a martyred people, and the most hopeful sign for humanity since the dove returned with the olive branch to Noah. They tend also to cling to Orwell’s view that some ideas–like the virtue of Jewish powerlessness–are so stupid that only intellectuals can believe them.

nyt trashes israel time to choose 18.3.2013More here



The NYT, all the news fit to wrap fish in.

NY Times Manages to Praise Muslims Over Assassination Attempt

Wed, March 6, 2013

by:  Dr. Daniel Pipes

Lars Hedegaard (right)At 11:20 a.m. on Feb. 5, Lars Hedegaard answered his door bell to an apparent mailman. Instead of receiving a package, however, the 70-year-old Danish historian and journalist found himself face to face with a would-be assassin about one third his age.

The assailant shot once, narrowly missing his head. The gun locked, Hedegaard wrestled with him, and the young man fled.

Given Hedegaard’s criticism of Islam and his even being taken to court on criminal charges of “hate speech,” the attack reverberated in Denmark and beyond. The Associated Press reported this incident, which was featured prominently in the British press, including the Guardian, the Daily Mail and the Spectator, as well as in Canada’s National Post. The Wall Street Journal published an article by him about his experience.

When the New York Times belatedly bestirred itself on Feb. 28 to inform its readership about the assassination attempt, it did not so much report on the event itself but on alleged Muslim support for Hedegaard’s right to express himself.

As implied by the title of the article, “Danish Opponent of Islam Is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak,” NYT journalist Andrew Higgins mainly celebrates Danish Islam:

“Muslim groups in the country, which were often criticized during the cartoon furor for not speaking out against violence and even deliberately fanning the flames, raised their voices to condemn the attack on Mr. Hedegaard and support his right to express his views, no matter how odious [emphasis added].”

And this is the theme that pervades the piece. For example, Higgins quotes Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration,  who says he is pleased that “the Muslim community is now active in the debate.”

(For a close dissection of Higgin’s agitprop, see Diana West’s evisceration; see also Andrew Bostom’s article where he compares Higgins to Walter Duranty, the NYT reporter who whitewashed Stalin’s crimes.)

Essentially, Higgins delegitimizes Hedegaard. In addition to the snarky “no matter how odious” reference, Higgins dismisses Hedegaard’s “opinions” as “a stew of anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war” and claims the Dane has “fanned wild conspiracy theories and sometimes veered into calumny.”

These characterizations of Hedegaard’s work are a vicious travesty. A few specifics:

More here.



The New York Times, all the news fit to wrap fish in.

Diana: In Timesworld, writing articles — such as the one quoting the openly murderous intent of a key Muslim leader, for example — “provokes” an assassination attempt. It’s those strident views of Hedegaard’s (words!) — and the “activities” the Free Press Society (speeches, usually requiring heavy state security just to make them!) that is the cause of all the trouble. So shut up already, Lars.

NOTE: What Diana is showing here, is the Times reporter invoking the concept of Marxist determinism, that one is bound, or even expected, to behave in such a way when driven to it by outside forces. It’s hooey, but it’s become mainstream thinking within these circles. It gives the miscreant a supposed ”moral licence” to commit crimes due to the level of their perceived victimization.

Times Demonizes Hedegaard, Lionizes Danish Muslim Instigator of Murderous Cartoon Riots

February 28th, 2013 by Andrew Bostom | 


walter_duranty-2Reporting “worthy” of this man, Walter Duranty

Andrew Higgins’ “inspirational” muse must be the ignoble New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, who deliberately concealed Stalin’s campaign of mass starvation and murder (or “dekulakization”) of 14.5 million in the Ukraine, from 1930-1937 (see Robert Conquest’s magisterial Harvest of Sorrow, pp. 299-307). This travesty was compounded when Duranty was awarded a 1932 Pulitzer prize for his despicably whitewashed, agitprop “reporting”.

Eight decades later, ostensibly reporting on the recent failed assassination attempt against Danish journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard for the New York Times (or more appositely, the New Duranty Times, since the “paper of record” has never denounced Duranty’s illegitimate receipt of the Pulitzer), Higgins demonizes Hedegaard as a purveyor of “ anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts,” while lionizing Copenhagen’s Islamic Society, in particular, its current leader, Imran Shah.

Higgins selectively quotes Shah’s statement, “we knew that this was something people would try to blame on us. We knew we had to be in the forefront and make clear that political and religious violence is totally unacceptable.”

However, as reported in an English language story at Jyllands-Posten on February 19, 2013, but not Higgins, it is only now, more than 7-years later, that Imran Shah and his predecessor, Ahmed Akkari, who formerly headed Copenhagen’s Islamic Society, have acknowledged their direct role in fomenting the murderous Muslim “cartoon riots”—which according to Jytte Klausenresulted in 200 dead, and over 800 wounded—by disseminating particularly inflammatory images never included amongst the published Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

The rest is here at Andy’s blog.



The Left and the Islamic fundamentalists are so very close in their use of language.

morsi and kristoff

New York Times’ questionable staff once again digs deep into the mire. Oh he’ll feign ignorance and play victim, but he’s the one who retweeted the comment from the disgraced M.J.Rosenberg.


nyt kristoff's jews are pigs comment 16.1.2013

More here.



If Carr would have been stupid enough to be seated with such a high value target terrorist, he would have gone up in smoke as well, and would have himself to blame. It’s the exact same if US journalists covering the fighting during WWII, would have decided to embed themselves within the ranks of the Germans, and then cry foul when Allied forces bombed the hell out of German soldiers filming the area.

I’ll go even further, the only people that are free from being targeted, are those within the medical profession, and that’s as long as they’re not being used by the military for some military advantage other than saving lives. Palestinians have used Red Crescent ambulances to ferry uninjured terrorists from one place to another to avoid Israeli fire.

UPDATE: A must read:  How Hamas and Islamic Jihad Use Journalism as a Cover for Terrorism

From the New York Slime’s sharpest blade:

New York Times Columnist Under Fire Over Claim that Israel Targets Journalists, Public Editor Mulls Response

The spray-painted car carrying terror operatives that was targeted by the IDF. Photo: IDF.

A New York Times columnist, who covers media and culture, has come under fire for falsely suggesting in a recent column that Israel deliberately targets journalists that it doesn’t agree with.

Referring to Israel’s recent “Pillar of Defense” operation, David Carr, who gained recognition for his role in the documentary Page One: Inside the New York Timeswrote in a Nov 25th column entitled Using War as Cover to Target Journalists:

“…three employees of news organizations were killed in Gaza by Israeli missiles. Rather than suggesting it was a mistake, or denying responsibility, an Israeli Defense Forces spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, told The Associated Press, ‘The targets are people who have relevance to terror activity.’”

“…Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama worked as cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV, which is run by Hamas and whose reporting frequently reflects that affiliation. They were covering events in central Gaza when a missile struck their car, which, according to Al-Aqsa, was clearly marked with the letters “TV.” (The car just in front of them was carrying a translator and driver for The New York Times, so the execution hit close to our organization.) And Mohamed Abu Aisha, director of the private Al-Quds Educational Radio, was also in a car when it was hit by a missile.”

“…While it is true that news media operations have become one more arrow in the quiver of modern warfare, a direct attack on information gatherers of any stripe is deeply troubling. And such attacks are hardly restricted to Israel: recall that in the United States assault on Baghdad, television stations were early targets.”

The IDF however asserts that they were targeting a high level terror operative in the strike. An IDF spokesperson confirmed to The Algemeiner that Muhammed Shamalah who was in the car, was a ”commander of Hamas forces in the Southern strip and head of the Hamas militant training programs.” This “places him as a pivotal figure in force buildup and the execution of operations in the area,” Eytan Buchman, another IDF spokesman confirmed in an email.

“We knew who it was that was in the car,” said the spokesperson, “there was the proper intelligence and confirmation to back it up before we hit the car.”

They  spray painted the letters TV on his car in a cynical effort to “exploit the cover of journalism,” Buchman wrote.

More here.



Miserable a-holes

After reports arose that former PLO leader Yasser Arafat’s body will be exhumed for further testing, under the assumption that perhaps he was killed by Israel via radioactive poisoning, the New York Times has picked up right where their pro-Arafat slant left off seven and half years years ago.

Writing the Times’ article explaining the poisoning theory, Rick Gladstone described Arafat as “the father figure of Palestinian nationalism.”

A father figure? Really?

Yet as Newsbusters has shown, this language is not far removed from the praise the Times was heaping on Arafat shortly after his death. In January 2005, the paper lionized Arafat’s “heroic history.”
The Times’ stories contained no explanation for what makes terrorism “heroic” or what makes leading terrorists heroic. Nevertheless, their coverage is as clearly slanted against Israel now as it was it when Arafat was alive.

More here.



Remember this faked scene a few years ago?


Now, for the past five weeks, Gaza has suffered another fuel crisis, closing its power plant three times. Hamas stopped all shipments of power plant fuel from Israel since January 2011 and relied on smuggled fuel from Egypt; Egypt cracked down on smugglers and Hamas has so far refused to allow fuel to go to Gaza via Israel.

More here.



This is why the Tundra Tabloids calls it the New York Slimes.

The media watchdog CAMERA scores another hit against the NYT, and while the TT was looking into the story, it found out that the NYT in fact changed the story to mirror CAMERA’s facts on the case of, Sarah Abu Sneineh,   one of the prisoners just released by Israel. Interestingly enough, the NYT added the correct information without informing the reader of their gross mistake.

Carl in J’lem informs that the correction appears at the very bottom of the NYT article.

Kudos to the folks at CAMERA for keeping the media’s feet to the fire. KGS

Ethan Bronner and Facts Too Good to Check

Leave it to the New York Times to simply take the word of any Palestinian who tells a tale of woe that puts Israel in a bad light; apparently such stories are simply too good to check. This time the occasion was the release of 550 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the second group of prisoners released as part of the deal freeing the abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Ethan Bronner’s report, Israel Frees Palestinians in 2nd Stage of Exchange, named only one of the Palestinian prisoners being released, Izzedine Abu Sneineh, who, readers are told, was arrested three years ago at the age of 15 for “throwing stones and hanging Palestinian flags from telephone poles.” Here is the full passage about the young miscreant:

 came with her family to greet her grandson Izzedine Abu Sneineh, who was arrested three years ago at age 15 for throwing stones and hanging Palestinian flags from telephone poles.

“He was just a schoolkid when he was arrested,” she said as she waited for him outside the tomb of Yasir Arafat. “We want him to go back to school. Only education is the way forward.”


So what do we learn from these lists? Az al-Din Shhada Akram Abu Snina, prisoner ID 855043360, was convicted and sentenced for “Weapons training; attempted murder” and possession of “weapons / ammo / explosives.”