The media refuse to report honestly on jihadist terror. Here’s why
April 5, 2019 (American Thinker) — On Sunday, the BBC reported another horrible news story from London: a knifeman went on a stabbing spree of "defenceless" people in London. The story revealed less about the incident it was purporting to report on than it did about our age of anti-reality and delusion.
In this age, it is not difficult to step back and observe almost indiscernible but seismic historical shifts in the making — not in the big-bang news events, but in the nitty-gritty details of the social fabric of our daily lives, where life happens. It is usually not so easy to detect such subtleties, let alone observe the silent measures a nation or a civilization takes when it quietly but most decidedly has...given up. One need not be an anthropologist to detect seismic changes in human behavior or societies.
First, it's language. Language is key. Subtle and not so subtle restrictions are placed on what would offend the invading force with its hair-trigger sensibilities. These restrictions are rigorously enforced by quisling societal institutions — media, academia, and so forth. So, for example, "Muslim" is replaced with "South Asian" or "Asian," with no fear that the "South Asians" or "Asians" will bomb a pop concert, mow down scores of families on a national holiday such as Bastille Day or Halloween or Christmas, shoot up a gay nightclub, and so forth. Actual South Asians and Asians have held demos against the media using them to cover for jihadis, but no media reported on them. Only the small, sagacious group of readers who follow websites such as the Geller Report were aware of the South Asian community's opposition to the wrongful blame.
Every time there is an attack by a jihadi, all apologies are extended by the host Western country, with admonitions of impending "phobia" of Islam and backlash, and so the cycle of self-flagellation begins and builds with each ensuing attack (all 34,800 since 9/11).
In initial reports of all jihad attacks, we are told "it is not terror related." The shifting definition of terror is slippery but expected. Then-president George W. Bush dropped the ball on September 20, 2001, when he danced around whether "A is A," decidedly avoiding jihad and Islam. Even with the thick, acrid smell of burnt blood and flesh, ash, and steel in the NYC air, Bush opted instead for the vague, blame-free "War on Terror."
The root cause, above all, is never to be spoken of. Verboten. Anyone who dares cross that line will be ultimately destroyed — a pariah, his or her good name murdered, unable to make a living. You will submit, or you will cease to exist, literally or figuratively. There is no motive, we are told; the motive, we are told, is "mental illness."
There is almost nothing in Sunday's BBC article about the London stabbings that is correct, save for the reporting that four people were stabbed. After that, it is all...editorial and subtle propaganda. This has all the earmarks of jihad, but it would be a horror, blasphemous (Islamophobic) to dare say it. When there is an incident that isn't jihad, it is immediately cast in the media as right-wing, white-supremacy bullocks. Absolutely. But jihad is quite different. You can never surmise, let alone speculate about whether some attack or incident might be jihad. And when it is jihad, you still cannot say it. If you use the word Muslim — as in, "Devout Muslim shouting allahu akbar stabs...," no one will publish it, and social media platforms will block the link. You will land in Facebook jail. Your first infraction gets you three days' suspension. Your next "violation" will land you in FB jail for a week, then a month, and eventually, you are terminated.
The BBC headline states that the stabbings were "random attacks." But they were not random if the knifemen wanted to kill unbelievers. Then they were not random at all. There is a reason these folks were targeted.
The article goes on to say, "The Metropolitan Police said the motive 'appears to be solely to inflict harm' as none of the victims were robbed or engaged in conversation before they were attacked." That, too, screams jihad. It is the very essence of a jihad terror attack. Instead, the BBC tells us, "mental health issues may be a factor." That they can say; that is accepted language in the age of jihad. The mental health community is not going to blow up Buckingham Palace.
There's a lot of fluff in the piece, but what the article does not tell you is that Edmonton is home to London's largest Turkish community. Or that a widow and grandmother described as "such a sweet lady" was beheaded in her own backyard by a devout Muslim in Edmonton not that long ago.
The attack is referred to as "GBH." Note the obscure terms. One might say grievous bodily harm is too harsh, but the media are shielding the perp, not the reader.
This act of sheer terror is getting no press. And why would it?
Pamela Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.
Published with permission from the American Thinker.