Soon after Abu Bakr Baghdadi was killed by American forces back in October, a lot of “woke” people, including some of my FB friends, took to Facebook and just about everywhere else to voice their outrage over the fact that The Washington Post had described Baghdadi, in their obituary of him, as an “austere scholar.” Boy, had the Post lost its way. Just sick.
Never mind that Baghdadi was an austere scholar. Never mind that being an austere scholar has never prevented anyone from being a rapist, a murderer, or a terrorist. And never mind that the obituary, written by Joby Warrich, one of the country’s experts on ISIS (and a reporter for the Post), explicitly discussed Baghdadi’s history of rape, murder, and terrorism–along with the scholarship Baghdadi produced to rationalize it. (Warrich discusses all of this at length in his Pulitzer-prize winning book on the subject, Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS, which I just happen to have read.)
No, the point to be made, apparently, was that the Liberal Mainstream Media is still too soft on radical Islam, unable to call a terrorist spade a spade. Eighteen years after 9/11, no less! Have those libtards learned nothing since then about the long, sad history of terrorism?
Ninio was the Israeli agent who with a bunch of other Israeli agents tried to blow up a bunch of American (and other) installations in Egypt–all civilian–in the hopes of pinning the explosions on Arabs and destabilizing the Egyptian government. This was likely done at the behest of Pinhas Lavon, Israel’s then Defense Minister. That the Israeli Defense Minister likely ordered a terrorist attack on American facilities in Egypt sounds like one of those proverbial “Zionist conspiracies,” doesn’t it? Israel attacked us? Our ally, Israel? The only democracy in the Middle East? Yeah, it did. Then it invaded Egypt. Just textbook-level history of the kind Americans love not to know.
I have no objection to anything in the Ninio obituary, by the way. Ninio is described in the article as a “liaison” to the bombers but not herself a bomber, and in the headline as a mere “spy” engaged in “espionage.” That’s potentially misleading, but I’m not apt to get all outraged about it. It’s obvious to most readers that a liaison to a terrorist operation is a terrorist engaged in terrorism, not a spy merely collecting information. You figure that out once you actually read the obituary. But if I were the kind of person who fixated on headlines at the expense of the content of the articles they head, boy would I be mad.
So feel free to conjure up your two minutes’ hate for The New York Times this morning, and its squishy liberal reporters, willing to serve up apologetic obituary-headline excuses for anti-American terrorists like Ninio. But I’ll pass. The obituary made for pleasant reading over coffee, but I have better things to do than fixate on irrelevant minutiae in the hopes of virtue signaling my fervent opposition to terrorism. Who around here would be fooled by it, anyway?