What They Hate About Mumbai

by Suketa Mehta - November 28th, 2008 - New York Times

MY bleeding city. My poor great bleeding heart of a city. Why do they go after Mumbai? There’s something about this island-state that appalls religious extremists, Hindus and Muslims alike. Perhaps because Mumbai stands for lucre, profane dreams and an indiscriminate openness.

The New York Times published this editorial Saturday that explains their view of the recent attacks on Mumbai (formerly Bombay). They have come to the conclusion the attacks are NOT a part of the global war to dominate the world, launched by the multiple extremist groups that form the Islamo-fascist movement. No way ... they insist. The attacks are a reaction to the horrible capitalism of both the Hindu and the Muslim communities in the new India.

It is all the capitalists fault ... meaning of course those evil capitalists in America.

Don't blame the Muslims. It is not their fault for beheading people. Blame the capitalists for hoarding all the wealth of the world and deluding the poor into dreams of getting rich. And the Hidus too. If the Muslims are at fault at all it is for not opposing the capitalism.

Steven Emerson wrote an article deconstructing the logic of the New York Times article. His article is titled Yes, the terrorists are winning.

The following extracts from the article makes the important point very clear.

Watching and reading reports of the Mumbai attacks was an Alice in Wonderland experience. Even after an Islamic terrorist group took credit, TV anchors and reporters assiduously avoided the term Islamic terrorist.

[snip]

On Wednesday, even though everyone knew by then that the perpetrators were jihadists, CNN constantly referred to the terrorists as "extremists"- with no modifier. Hell, they could have been the Basque ETA or the ultra right wing U.S. militia. Then a CNN anchor asked his guest with totally innocence, "Now why would an extremist group target a Jewish house of worship?"

What an idiot.

Steven goes on to point out that even the inarticulate retard, George W. Bush has abandoned calling the Islamo-fascists by any name that references Islam. He has even given government orders that only "extremist", "terrorist" or "militant" can be used. The people committing these crimes are offended if we call them by their real names and we certainly don't want to offend them now do we?

Another article by Robert Spencer is called appropriately, Still Unprepared Against Terror. His contribution to pointing out the obvious follows

The primary reason for this unpreparedness, of course, is the unwillingness or inability of government, law enforcement, and the mainstream media to confront the ideology of the jihadists and the Islamic doctrines that provide the foundation for that ideology.

Instead, it is an ironclad dogma in the American public square that the overwhelming majority of American Muslims decisively and unequivocally reject that ideology and doctrine and have nothing but abhorrence for the jihadists. Thus it is unsurprising that it was a Kuwaiti journalist, rather than an American one, who in the wake of the Mumbai attacks dared to observe that the Emperor has no clothes: “Unfortunately, we have yet to see a distinguished popular condemnation in the traditional Arab or Muslim communities that strongly rejects what is happening in the name of Islam.”

Deepak Chopra was just the first to blame the west and America specifically for causing the terrorist attacks. Islam is never at fault. Why are we are allowing this hypocrisy to continue?

An earlier posting on this blog creates even more concern. Our new President, the Magic Marxist Messiah, only called the Pakistani leader and not the Indian leader. We may be moving from an idiotic refusal to blame Islam into an even worse duplicitous coverup and active collaboration with Islam. Why would Obama only call Pakistan? Is he perhaps just as stupid as George W. Bush?