When you read the linked piece, notice how al-Reuters goes out of its way to call the Islamist rioters "youths" and "immigrants". But when it gets right down to brass tacks, there is one thing these so called "journalists" cannot deny: it is about Islamism:
These thugs are rioting so that "journalists" like this one will not dare to identify what is really behind the violence, nor will it report on the will to violence of the Islamofascists. And, judging from the tone of the Reuters article, one could only discern that their campaign of terror is succeeding.
Authorities have arrested dozens of youths, predominantly with immigrant backgrounds.
Police said that Saturday night was calmer than earlier in the week.
Social workers said an alleged plot to kill a Danish cartoonist for his drawing two years ago of the Prophet Mohammad might have fuelled the riots. Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoon on Wednesday in protest against the plot.
Ten Danish lawmakers cancelled a four-day trip to Iran on Saturday, two days before their departure, after Iranian protests about the republication of the cartoon.The Danish Foreign Ministry said parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee dropped the trip after the Iranian parliament demanded an apology because Danish newspapers had reprinted the cartoon, one of several whose publication two years ago caused outrage in Islamic countries.
UPDATE: Roger Kimball adds an exclamation point to my characterization of Reuters and its dhimmitude:
... That odd odor you smell is the aroma of politically correct mendacity wafting through the hallway. Danish youths torching cars for six nights running because spring is coming? What’s wrong with this carcass? You can’t tell from the first four paragraphs, but the cat peeks out of the Burka in the paragraphs that follow.Police arrested two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent on Tuesday …
“Ah Ha!,” you say, “that sort of ‘youth’ is out there with the gasoline and lighted matches.”
And why were the “two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent” arrested? Why, “for planning to kill a cartoonist who drew one of the cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper two years ago that roused a storm of protest in Muslim countries.”
You remember the Danish cartoon contretemps: that was when (it was one time when) some adherents of the Religion of Peace went postal and started baying for blood, organizing boycots, setting fire to various Danish embassies around the world.
The Reuters story goes on to note that 15 Danish papers reprinted the drawing by the poor bastard of a cartoonist who is now shuttling from safe house to safe house to escape the Wrath of Khan. “Several hundred Muslims gathered in central Copenhagen on Friday to protest against publication of the cartoon. Most Muslims consider depictions of the founder of Islam offensive.”
Two points: 1. Where is the connection between the “youths” of the opening paragraphs and the “several hundred Muslims” who gathered to protest that slip into the story at the end? Why does Reuters take advantage of the Peel option, referring to “youths” (“That Root”) instead of “Muslim youths” (the “plain potato”)? It’s not “manners,” as Young suggested was the motivation for Sir Robert, but a desire to avoid reality, aka cravenness. Reuters, remember, was the news service that, following the bombings of September 11, cashiered the word “terrorist” because, Steven Jukes, Reuter’s global head of news, wrote “We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Do we really?
2. One thing we all do know is that Muslims are “offended” by depictions of the Muhammad. In fact, the list of the things Muslims are offended by would take over a culture. They don’t like ice-cream that (used to be) distributed by Burger King because a decoration on the lid looked like (sort of) the Arabic script for “Allah.” They are offended by “pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet” appearing in the workplace. They take umbrage at describing Islamic terrorism as, well, Islamic terrorism and have managed to persuade Gordon Brown to rename it “anti-Islamic activity.” But here’s the thing: one of the features of living in a modern, secular democracy is that there is always plenty of offense to go around. No Muslim is more offended by cartoons of their Prophet than I am by their barbaric reaction to the cartoons. But their reaction when offended is to torch an embassy, shoot a nun , or knife a filmmaker. I write a column deploring such behavior. You see the difference.
Read the whole thing. His dissection of Reuters is a one-handed, reverse 360 in-your-face monster slam dunk. Nicely done, Roger.