How do you characterize a revolutionary Islamist, antisemitic and genocide-oriented, anti-Western, and anti-Christian organization?
What political orientation do you assign to a movement who calls for the Jews to be wiped out; endorses a jihad against America; and works to bring to power a totalitarian, theocratic state that would torture or murder infidels?
Well, of course, it depends on which publication you’re writing for.
If you’re writing for the Guardian, you refer to such a dangerous, intolerant, anti-democratic movement benignly as “an influential conservative” group.
In an utterly surreal story (Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Says Bin-Laden should have been tried, Guardian, May 3) – in which Martin Chulov reports the Muslim Brotherhood’s concern that the civil liberties of Osama Bin Laden weren’t respected, without observing the almost comical hypocrisy of the radical Islamist group’s sudden fondness for progressive notions of due process – the Muslim Brotherhood is referred to twice as “conservative” and as “the inspiration for mainstream political Islamists.”
The evidence pertaining to the the Muslim Brotherhood’s extremism is bountiful, and it is simply incomprehensible how the Guardian, and others in the mainstream media, can continue to characterize the movement as anything approaching “moderate”.
Clips of MB leaders espousing views that are not quite “mainstream” or “conservative” are all over YouTube, but I’ll leave you with this one, in which the group’s spiritual leader, Yusuf al Qaradawi, characterizes Hitler’s slaughter of millions of Jews as divine punishment for their sins.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStliOnVl6Q&feature=player_embedded]
Like this:
Like Loading...
When is the term “conservative” not used in the pejorative by the Guardian? When used to characterize Muslim Brotherhood
How do you characterize a revolutionary Islamist, antisemitic and genocide-oriented, anti-Western, and anti-Christian organization?
What political orientation do you assign to a movement who calls for the Jews to be wiped out; endorses a jihad against America; and works to bring to power a totalitarian, theocratic state that would torture or murder infidels?
Well, of course, it depends on which publication you’re writing for.
If you’re writing for the Guardian, you refer to such a dangerous, intolerant, anti-democratic movement benignly as “an influential conservative” group.
In an utterly surreal story (Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Says Bin-Laden should have been tried, Guardian, May 3) – in which Martin Chulov reports the Muslim Brotherhood’s concern that the civil liberties of Osama Bin Laden weren’t respected, without observing the almost comical hypocrisy of the radical Islamist group’s sudden fondness for progressive notions of due process – the Muslim Brotherhood is referred to twice as “conservative” and as “the inspiration for mainstream political Islamists.”
The evidence pertaining to the the Muslim Brotherhood’s extremism is bountiful, and it is simply incomprehensible how the Guardian, and others in the mainstream media, can continue to characterize the movement as anything approaching “moderate”.
Clips of MB leaders espousing views that are not quite “mainstream” or “conservative” are all over YouTube, but I’ll leave you with this one, in which the group’s spiritual leader, Yusuf al Qaradawi, characterizes Hitler’s slaughter of millions of Jews as divine punishment for their sins.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStliOnVl6Q&feature=player_embedded]
Like this:
The Guardian’s Khaled Diab, on “peace and co-existence” (and, oh yeah, the right of Palestinians to “armed resistance”)
You may also like
CiF Watch prompts Guardian correction to 'banned Palestinian workers' claim
CiF Watch follow up: Guardian blogger axed after crazy post about Gaza War
Tony Kushner and the curious case of professor, and CiF columnist, Kristofer Petersen-Overton