NY Times refuses to use the "T" word on al-Ata

The "Gray anti-Semitic" New York Times, a former newspaper, was okay with referring to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a "terrorist," but they refrained from using that word to describe the "Palestinian" jihadi, aka terrorist, Bahu Abu al-Ata. [There is no such country as Palestine, thus the scare quotes.]

[H/T Jihad Watch]

You see, when Hamas or Islamic Jihad lobs rockets at Jewish civilians in Israel, they are not considered terrorists--they are 'freedom fighters' in the view of the former newspaper.

One can only wonder how the Times would have handled al-Ata's death if he committed similar atrocities as al-Baghdadi, perhaps videotaping similar barbaric behavior. But he merely planned the killing of civilian men, women and children and it wasn't on video, so the Times can pretend he wasn't a terrorist.

The first versions of the article was published in the early morning hours of November 12 after the terrorist was killed. The article at that time accurately noted Islamic Jihad’s terror designation — but that information was later scrubbed from the story. You'd think that Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) or Ilhan Omar (D-MN) wrote the story, but it was just another anti-Semitic crap weasel at the Times.

Like ISIS and Hamas, Islamic Jihad is designated worldwide as a terrorist group, including by the United States, the EU, Canada, Japan, as well as others.

Abu al-Ata was a senior leader of Islamic Jihad. 

His organization is responsible for countless attacks targeting civilians. Islamic Jihad has targeted Israeli restaurants, markets, buses, and shopping malls, causing mass casualties.  

Israeli intelligence learned that he was planning another such attack in the near future, which was why he was taken out before he could kill more innocent people.

He was clearly a terrorist and a piece of human waste. Good riddance!

Please consider following this blog and visit the ads on this page.   You can also see my other blog on the Times of Israel.

Tweet