You know, Time magazine has been rushing to the head of the line to accuse U.S. Marines of a civilian "massacre" in Haditha. So, I was wondering last week about the questions that might be coming when it was learned that a woman and child exited the earth with Zarqawi.
But apparently the MSM is willing to let bygones be bygones and forgive the U.S. military for killing a 16-year-old girl and an 18-month-old baby boy in the June 8 airstrike.
I am sure you noticed that there was hardly a peep about this. And why?
Because the 16-year-old girl was Zarqawi's wife of three, yes three, years and the 18-month-old boy was Zarqawi's son by his child bride. Sweetness & Light was talking up the Time cover story a week ago and noting that Zarqawi the holy warrior was also Zarqawi the child-molester.
Why are we not told such things by Time and their ilk? And when the MSM does mention them, why are they mentioned in passing, or outright buried?
Perhaps Time worries that its readers might be less-inclined to view the jihadis as "freedom fighters" or "minutemen" if more people knew who we were dealing with?
Why doesn't Time and the rest of the MSM just be honest and tell its readers that the Zarqawis, bin Ladens, and the rest of the jihadis of the world are just trying to emulate Mohammed? This is, in fact, what the jihadis claim. Why not investigate and let people decide?
We need to understand the enemy. Does the MSM not understand this? I think they do, but for some reason (maybe they can explain), they don't give us the information necessary to "connect the dots", so to speak, to understand and accordingly prepare for the moves of our Militant Islamist enemies.
Like I said, the jihadis' claimed philosophy is pretty simple: Imitate Mohammed. For example, Mohammed killed infidels and sought to establish Islamic law by force. Modern-day jihadis kill infidels and seek to establish Islamic law by force. Mohammed liked to behead infidels. Modern-day jihadis, too. Mohammed had a child bride. Zarqawi, too. Etc., etc.
Robert Spencer ties all this together:
So, to clarify: I am not in the least interested in discrediting Muhammad and Islam as an end in itself. Nor do I think that such a discrediting would be of much use in anti-terror efforts. The importance of critical examination of Muhammad and Islam comes from the fact that jihad terrorists around the world -- from Osama bin Laden to Omar Bakri in England and Abu Bakar Bashir in Indonesia and everywhere in between -- invoke Muhammad and Islam to explain their goals and justify their actions, as well as to win recruits among Muslims. When they do that, it becomes important for non-Muslims, and in particular those in government and law enforcement positions, to know how they do it, so that such efforts to invigorate and expand the jihadist ranks can be effectively countered. In that case, a refusal to acknowledge these unpleasant elements of Islam becomes a hindrance to anti-terror and human rights efforts.Bottom line: When Militant Islamists wage war in the name of Islam and claim to be following the example of Mohammed, it behooves the civilized world to shed some light on Islam and Mohammed. The truth is on our side in this effort. In taking up this battle, we gain key high ground in the information war.
To wit: I would never have thought it a matter of importance to non-Muslims that Muhammad took a 9-year-old bride at the age of 52 (see Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 236) were it not for the fact that child marriage is rampant in the Islamic world, and that that is a public health and human rights issue. To combat it effectively, there must be an honest appraisal by Muslims of the influence of Muhammad's example here, and a forthright willingness to stand up and say that his example in this must not be followed today. Whether or not there is any hope that Muslims will actually do that in any significant group is another question, but if it is not done, it is certain that the problem will continue.
So I guess this answers why we can expect no help from the MSM in this battle.