VFR’s Non-Muslim Terrorist Watch
have listed seven articles, all of them linked
at the Drudge Report
, on the Bombay assault, on the Indian commandos’ attempts to free the hostages and other people trapped in several luxury hotels, and on other aspects of the event. In the seven articles, there is one (1) reference to the fact that the attackers are Muslims.
PM Singh blames neighbours as battle rages (Reuters)
The word “Muslim” appears two or three times in the article, but not to identify the attackers. The article quotes one of the attacker speaking of his solidarity with Muslims in India, but doesn’t refer to the attackers themselves as Muslims:
Militants who attacked Mumbai came from Pakistan: army official
“Release all the mujahideens, and Muslims living in India should not be troubled,” said a militant inside the Oberoi, speaking to Indian television by telephone.
The attackers are said to come from Pakistan, but they are described as Muslims.
Indian troops raid hotels to free hostages
The article identifies the attackers as Muslims, once, in the lead sentence:
Mumbai attacks: British lawyer trapped in siege hotel
Black-clad Indian commandoes raided two luxury hotels to try to free hostages Thursday, and explosions and gunshots shook India’s financial capital a day after suspected Muslim militants killed 104 people.
The article has no mention of Muslims, but that is understandable, as the whole piece concerns a cell phone call by a British man in one of the captured hotels telling how he has barricated himself inside his hotel room for the last 18 hours with no food and little water.
Coast Guard locates suspected terrorist ship M V Alpha
Very brief story, no mention of Muslims, though it says the terrorists are suspected of coming from Gujarat, which as Wikipedia informs us, is located next to Pakistan, and has a nine percent Muslim minority.
8-10 hostages reportedly freed from Chabad House in [Bombay]
The story concerns Israeli hostages in Bombay, at least some of whome have been released. Story has no mention of Muslims.
Intelligence chiefs were expecting Al-Qaeda spectacular
The story is all about al Qaeda, with zero mention of the fact that Al Qaeda is a Muslim organization that follows the Islamic rule of jihad aimed at the establishment of a world-wide Muslim caliphate, and that is supported by a large portion of the world’s Muslim population:
- end of initial entry -
The counter-terrorist sources said targeting Bombay’s most luxurious hotels and a crowded railway station had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation….. As the unprecedented scale of the attacks became clear last night, it looked to be the most co-ordinated terrorist operation since the targeting of the Twin Towers in New York in 2001…. Dozens of gunmen were involved in up to 19 different attacks, although the main focus seemed to be the taking of foreign hostages and detaining them in two of Bombay’s most prestigious hotels.
The story, like a couple of others, says that a group called the Deccan Mujahadeen claimed responsibility for the Bombay attack, but adds that this is not confirmed.
The story uses the word “Islamic” once. In a list of past al Qaeda and other terrorist attacks, it refers to “Militant Islamic students in Iran” who stormed the U.S. embassy in Teheran in 1979. So the only direct reference in the story to Muslims concerns the 30-year-old capture of the U.S. embassy in Iran. Perhaps, 30 years from now, the Times will get around to referring to the “Muslim terrorists in India” who attacked Bombay in 2008.
Lydia McGrew writes:
Happy Thanksgiving to you!
I noticed that in the one story that used the word “Muslim,” they try to qualify that identification with the word “suspected”—“suspected Muslim militants.” This practice appears to be standard with the AP on this story.
The modifier just causes confusion. It could almost be taken to imply that the people actually doing all these things are merely suspected of doing them! (Consider the parallel to “the alleged perpetrator of the crime.”) But that would be nonsense, of course, as the sentence says, “Suspected Muslim militants killed 104 people.” So obviously what it means is that they are merely suspected of being Muslim. But this is also stupid, since there is no question that they are Muslim. And in any event, that use of the modifier “suspected” isn’t a clear and correct way to convey that meaning, since in the phrase given the word “suspected” modifies “militants,” not “Muslim.” If one wanted to say that they are suspected of being Muslim, one should say something like, “It is suspected that the militants who killed 104 people are Muslim.”
Just another example, probably not even one of the worst, of the way that shying away from politically incorrect hard facts leads to bad writing.
Good catch. If they meant to say that it’s not yet determined that the terrorists are Muslims, they should have said, “terrorists suspected of being Muslism.” But as you point out, that’s also nonsensical, since there is no doubt that a group carrying out an attack like this in India, which Muslims began invading over a thousand years ago and the jihad hasn’t stopped since then, are Muslims.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 27, 2008 01:19 PM | Send