ISIS takes Palmyra; NY Times conflicted
But as many historic figures would confirm, trying to ignore a dangerous truth leads to disaster.
Below are the first two paragraphs of a story two days ago in the Times:
Frantic Message as Palmyra Fell: ‘We’re Finished’Couple of points: First, it should be obvious that the daughter of the Syrian general is--was--a civilian. She obviously had no part in anything her father may have done. And yet the murderous thugs of ISIS cut off her head.
NY Times, May 21, 2015
The Syrian Army soldier had long served in Palmyra, but he was on leave when he heard that Islamic State militants had attacked a village northeast of the desert city, killing dozens of his comrades. He sent frantic text messages, trying to reach them. No one answered.
He shared his anguish last week in a series of texts as he slowly pieced together bits of the story from survivors of the massacre. Soldiers told him they had run out of ammunition. One officer radioed to headquarters, “We’re finished.” Worst of all, the soldier said, was the photograph he was shown of the decapitated body of a friend, the 19-year-old daughter of a Syrian general.
What monster beheads a female teenage non-combatant?
Of course you almost certainly think--as the charming idiots at the Times think--that the thugs of ISIS would never do the same to you or your family, because...why?
Oh yeah, got it: Because you're willing to convert to Islam. Hey, enjoy.
Nah, you think they'd never do that to you or your children because you don't believe they can ever reach you here in the U.S. Because oceans.
And of course you have no plans to visit Europe. You've probably already been there, so no reason to go back. And why would your kids need to see Europe? After all, you brought back lots of pictures from your trip, right?
Now: I'm quite certain that the editors of the Times haven't had a sudden awakening to the horror that is Islam, so I expect they've already published the counter to this story--that to the extent ISIS is bad at all, it's G.W. Bush's fault because they were created by his invasion of Iraq.
Another favorite liberal counter-story is claiming that to the extent that ISIS may be winning militarily, it's only temporary; that in reality ISIS is actually losing, but this fact is being cunningly concealed from you by the Republicans.
And sure enough, right on cue, here's the Times headline on an op-ed piece 3 days ago:
And of course the Times doesn't need to add that the Republicans are claiming ISIS is a serious threat because they want to commit U.S. troops to another ground war in Iraq. This doesn't need to be explicitly said because every true liberal and Democrat "knows" it's true.
So until the editors at the Times have a sudden epiphany, we can expect to see them continue to trivialize ISIS's military victories; to rationalize their destruction of irreplaceable antiquities, to ignore the group's capture and rape of thousands of Yazidi Christian girls, and...the beheading of the general's daughter.
They do this because the main mission of the Times--as with the entire mainstream media--is to support the emperor--and the emperor obviously doesn't want to order our forces--specifically air power, both USAF and Navy--to take effective military action against ISIS. Thus any criticism of ISIS by the Times will continue to be rationalized and muted.
To use the term favored by sophisticates in NY and DC: nuanced.
My guess is that the emperor is condoning ISIS as a means of pressuring the Israeli government to support the creation of a Palestinian state. But I'm cynical that way.