Media, Islam Apologists Converge on NYC Terror Coverage with Shameful Bias

“Allahu Akbar” can be “beautiful,” according to Jake Tapper.

On Halloween Day, New York City experienced its deadliest Islamic terror attack since 9/11. An Uzbekistan national, 29, drove a rented truck onto a bike path, killed eight people and injured at least a dozen more before he slammed into a school bus and was taken into custody. There were almost immediate reports that the terrorist shouted “Allahu Akbar” and it was confirmed that a note was found inside the truck of the terrorist’s devotion to ISIS. It also didn’t take long for the media and other Islam apologists to weave a narrative of protection ahead of expected bigotry against Muslims.

During its initial coverage shortly after the attack, CNN’s chyron crawled in all-caps: “WITNESSES: SUSPECT WAS YELLING ‘GOD IS GREAT’ IN ARABIC.”

Except it doesn’t mean “God is great.” It literally means “Allah is greatest” as stated in the Hadith. CNN wants to dupe the American public into believing the terrorist did this unspeakable act in the name of God to lessen the backlash against Muslims. But never forget what 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta said in a note he left behind: “When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

The terror-tied Linda Sarsour was on Twitter also downplaying the jihadist phrase, saying it’s commonly spoken during prayers and other celebratory moments for Muslims. She didn’t mention, however, that “Allahu Akbar” is many times the last thing terror victims hear. Yet, she insists, “We cannot criminalize ‘God is great.’ Prosecute the criminal not a faith.”

But Jake Tapper wins the bonus round when he said on CNN that “Allahu Akbar” can be “beautiful,” you know, when not used for terrorism:

Then there's CNN crime and justice reporter Shimon Prokupecz, who couldn’t bring himself to provide an on-air description of the suspect, who entered the U.S. during the Obama administration, even though police had him in custody and a full description: “Police know who he is. They have a description of him. I'm not going to share that at the moment.”



A Rice University professor of sociology, Dr. Craig Considine, blasted on Twitter:

NBC News was quick to forget the victims of terror and instead focused on the imaginary backlash argument:

As did The New Yorker:

On the day after the attack, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer logged onto Twitter to tell us it’s way too soon to politicize the tragedy:

But here's Schumer just two days after the Las Vegas shooting doing what he urges everyone else not to — politicizing:

And here is where the other twisted narrative appears: media reactions after mass shootings and the reactions after terrorism. Is Jimmy Kimmel planning to devote his opening monologues to call for rental truck bans, or perhaps tighter bans on immigration like he did with guns after Las Vegas? No! And with this bookending the Vegas tragedy for October, MSNBC’s Joy Reid wonders:

Then the inevitable lines drawn back to racist Dylann Roof killing black church goers in Charlotte:

But did everyone notice how the media went after Roof and his belief systems (and rightfully so) in the hours, days, and weeks after he pulled the trigger, but won't do the same when the killer is Muslim? Do you think for a second that if a large truck flying a Confederate flag was used to mow down innocent people and a redneck emerged shouting racist epithets that the media wouldn't be slandering swathes of white people? (Maybe ask the Democrats who made this ad.)

And even though the terrorist didn't use firearms, there are those who manage to make a gun control argument anyway, like The New York Time's Nicholas Kristof: 

In reality, if there were armed citizens on the streets of NY, perhaps we wouldn't be talking about the high death toll we are now. But that would take some intellectual honesty and the media is devoid of any of that these days.