Guardian

Radical Jews vs. Radical Bombs: Contrasting Guardian emphases when reporting acts of terror


Back on Oct. 3, a Guardian report about an arson at a mosque in Israel included this headline.

In the first passage, we learn who the culprits of the arson most likely were, despite no definitive claim of responsibility:

“Arsonists torched a mosque in an Arab village in northern Israel Monday, setting off protests by residents who clashed with police. Graffiti sprayed at the site suggested Jewish radicals, suspected in other recent mosque fires, were involved.”

On Dec. 25, however, a Guardian’s story about a series of deadly terror attacks against Christians, targeting Nigerian churches on Christmas day, which resulted in dozens killed, avoided any mention of the perpetrators in both the headline and sub heading.

The above headline is even more interesting in light of the fact that the first passage in the story notes immediately that the “Christmas Day bombs” didn’t target the churches without assistance:

“A militant Islamist group [Boko Haram] has claimed responsibility for a series of co-ordinated attacks on Christmas Day services at churches in Nigeria, one of which killed at least 35 people.”

Further, a proper contextualizing of the attack would necessarily include the fact that Boko Haram is a Sunni Islamist movement, and that Sunni extremists, per the U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center’s (NCTC) website, were responsible for approximately 70% of all terrorism related deaths worldwide (9,092 out of 13,186) in 2010. (A good summary of the official U.S. report can be found here)

In contrast, Christian extremist groups were responsible for 321 terror related deaths in 2010 worldwide.

The remaining attacks were committed by secular, political, or anarchist groups.

Here’s a graph (from the NCTC)  you’ll never find among the Guardian’s ubiquitous charts, graphs and “interactive” maps.

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , , , ,

5 replies »

  1. You can add five more deaths in Iraq – a car bomb just went off there.

    Boko Haram has announced that there will never be peace until its demands are met and full sharia implemented.

    And so it goes.

    • “Hamas has announced that there will never be peace until its demands are met and full sharia implemented.”

      Well, you know how it is with the Guardian and Ha… What?! You didn’t say “Hamas”? You’re talking about some group called “Boko Haram” in Nigeria?

      You sure could have fooled me…

      (The joys of the semi-serious style of argumentation. As the old Romans used to say: “What are you laughing at? Change a few names and this story’s about you!”)

  2. The crazy thing about the Guardian, when UNESCO pulled is funding for the Palestinian paper that praised Hitler, thanks to Palmediawatch for documenting it.
    The Guardian posted this article about this story.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10009198
    In the article, the author has Hitler telling her in a dream that he killed Jews “so you would all know that they are a nation which spreads destruction all over the world.” He advises her to be “resilient and patient concerning the suffering that Palestine is experiencing at their hands.”
    “Thanks for the advice,” the narrator replies.

    The magazine’s director, Shareef Samhan, did not dispute the translation, though he said the girl was “accusing” Hitler and not praising him.

    Yeah and I’m from Lake Stupid.
    P.A/Fatah. is the most dangerous terrorist group of all.
    It is not surprising that the P.A. terrorists honor and support their fellow terrorists. It is only surprising to those delusional and/or evil people who’ve been trying to convince us the P.A. are “peace partners”. In fact, the P.A. is the most dangerous terrorist group of all. The P.A./Fatah has maimed and murdered far more Jews than Hamas and Hizbullah combined. Unlike Hamas, the P.A. proudly announced it’s genocidal plans mainly in Arabic, which Palmediawatch documents all the time.

    • Good catch, Ed. While it’s only an AP report, it’s still so characteristic of the Guardian to publish a report which sows doubt about even the most clear examples of antisemitism.