New York Times slammed for article claiming Hezbollah terror boss Hassan Nasrallah was a 'gifted ora

[240B]

New York Times slammed for article claiming Hezbollah terror boss Hassan Nasrallah was a 'gifted orator' who wanted 'equality' for all religions

DAILYMAIL.COM
By Taryn Pedler
30 September 2024

The New York Times has been slammed for publishing an article claiming Hezbollah terror boss Hassan Nasrallah was a 'gifted orator' who wanted 'equality' for all religions.

The article, titled 'Protesters Mourn Nasrallah's Death Around the World', was uploaded onto the website on Saturday and quickly began receiving a flurry of backlash, criticism, and mockery across social media.

The short article piled praise onto the Hezbollah terror boss, who the NYT claimed was a 'powerful orator' who was 'beloved among many Shiite Muslims', in part for providing 'social services' in Lebanon.

It also stated Nasrallah 'maintained that there should be one Palestine with equality for Muslims, Jews, and Christians'.

But the terror leader notoriously believed in the destruction of the Jewish state and his Iran-backed militant organization carried out several deadly attacks on Jews around the world.

(more)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13906561/New-York-Times-slammed-article-claiming-Hezbollah-terror-boss-Hassan-Nasrallah-gifted-orator-wanted-equality-religions.html

[240B]

The issue is not whether this is fake news. It is obviously well beyond 'fake news' into some kind of perverse dystopian propaganda nonsense which would be expected to be printed in Russia or China. Nasrallah wanted to kill everybody in all religions including fellow Islamists if they did not support him, his terrorist groups, and his religious zealotry. The very idea that he would ever consider the idea of 'religious equality' is farcically absurd.

The bigger question to me is, 'Why?' Why did they write this? What did they hope to gain? and from whom? Were they somehow forced or coerced into publishing an article which implies that Hitler really just wanted peace, and to take care of minorities across the world?

If not then why would they embarrass and degrade themselves like this. It would be so enlightening to know the full story on who wrote this, who edited it, and who approved it for print. And again, why did they do this? It is a question to which we will never know the answer.

[Smokin Joe]

Maybe they just want to be the last Kefirs standing...

Didn't they gush over Hunter's artwork?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Maybe they just want to be the last Kefirs standing...

Didn't they gush over Hunter's artwork?

They also gushed over Adolph Hitler's oratory skills and that “Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded.”

The New York Times' first article about Hitler's rise is absolutely stunning
On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler. It’s an incredible read — especially its assertion that “Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded.” This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler’s anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses.

But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler’s vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler’s appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):

He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the “Hakenkreuzler.” So violent are Hitler’s fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew’s night.

But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: “You can’t expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.”
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8016017/ny-times-hitler

[mountaineer]

They gush over these terrorists as "Islamic scholars." Disgusting.

[unite for individuality]

The New York Times' first article about Hitler's rise is absolutely stunning
On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler.

I'm surprised that anyone outside of Germany noticed Hitler at all in 1922.
The Beer Hall Putsch was a year later.
Mein Kampf was written three years later.
Hitler actually came to power eleven years later.
Hitler did not start the Nazi Party.  It already existed, and he joined it.

People tend to think that dictatorships are created by an individual.
They are not. Dictatorships are created by groups of people (gangs).
The dictator is a gang member who happens to have a charismatic personality.
The gang exploits people's tendency to worship celebrities
by featuring the charismatic person, to attract popular support.
Most people do not become fans of ideas.  They become fans of individuals.

The gang members support the individual because they know that
they can have more wealth and power as a gang member
than they could ever have as an individual.