Thursday, December 31

Leftist rag cites "anti-Muslim violence" in Houston mosque arson, doesn't apologize when perp found to be Muslim

One of the constant tactics of the Left is lying about...well, everything.  So it came as no surprise when, after someone set a fire at the door of a Houston mosque, the charming left-wing assholes at Salon ran this story (reported as by Ben Norton):

Amid escalating anti-Muslim violence, suspect arrested for allegedly setting Houston mosque on fire on Christmas

While Christians around the U.S. were celebrating Christmas, Muslims in Texas were terrorized. After Friday prayers, the Islamic Center of Houston was set on fire in a suspected arson attack.
OMG, yet another hate crime against what your betters constantly call "the religion of peace."  See?  We been tellin' ya that crazy right-wing Islamophobes have been terrorizing our poor Muslim brothers!

Then a funny thing happened:  Security-cam tapes showed that the guy who lit the fire had been a member of the mosque for a couple of years.

In a demonstration of "journalistic" integrity Salon admitted they'd jumped to an incorrect--and hateful--conclusion, and retracted the headline ("amid escalating anti-Muslim violence") and the claim that "Muslims in Texas were terrorized."

Hahahahahahahahaha!  Yeah, you totally believed that, right?

What Salon did was temporarily "disappear" the story, without a word of explanation.  Then a few hours later it reappeared, this time with the note that
The fire was allegedly set by a man who attended the mosque — but other mosques have been attacked in recent weeks
 So instead of apologizing for the gross and hate-fanning error, Salon changed the underlying story to "well, there have been attacks on other mosques."

But the topper was that when the Daily Caller tweeted fabricator Ben Norton to ask why the story had initially vanished, Norton e-mailed this reply:
The piece was not ‘taken down.’ It was temporarily reverted to a draft, in order to be edited.
One marvels at the deftness of the lie:  The piece was NOT 'taken down.'  Oh no, citizen, not at all.  Rather, it was merely "temporarily reverted to a draft." 

Apparently the story took itself down.  On-line stories can be edited without making them disappear first.

But hey, "at this point what possible difference could it make?"

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home