More from Mumbai, with an extra serving of bias

It has now come to light that the hostages killed by the terrorists in Mumbai were brutally tortured before they died – and that the Jewish hostages recieved the worst treatment. While I can’t say I’m entirely shocked by the barbarism displayed here by these animals, it’s notable that they were so forthright with their special treatment of these hostages. Combine that with the AP labeling the Chabad house the “headquarters of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish group,” and we have a winner. It’s obvious that the terrorists hated the Jews and wanted to brutalize them – but why must our own media try to sugarcoat that by making it sound like they somehow deserved it?

Here’s a brief explanation of why the labeling of Chabad is so inaccurate, from a commenter over at Ace’s:

First, the rabbi you will find at a Chabad house is a Lubavitcher (named after a town in Russia), which means he is someone who is dressed traditionally, but has an extremely modern outlook. Lubavichers are, generally, very cool, worldly people. They aren’t typical traditional Jews who, e.g., are very suspicious of the Internet and all things modern. Also, as this is AOSHQ, a Lubavitcher rabbi’s wife is allowed to look beautiful (if modest) in her dress. These are very cool, very warm, very with it people; they aren’t quite modern orthodox a la Senator Lieberman, but nor are they “ultra orthodox.” as in detached from the modern world, etc. Check out These folk were some of the first to use the Internet in a powerful way.

Second, whether it be in Mumbai, or Knoxville, TN, most of the people you’ll find at a Chabad House will not be Lubavitchers, or even the Orthodox; they’ll be just ordinary Jews looking for some Jewish culture, spirituality or kosher food off the beaten path.

Additionally, big-O “Orthodox” is a proper name for this group of Jews. Saying this Jewish center is “ultra-Orthodox” is analogous to calling St. James’ Church “ultra-Catholic.” It’s inaccurate and superfluous, and serves only to conjur up the image of radical religion that has been associated in the pop culture with the word “orthodox.”

Just another case of media bias trying to portray a slaughtered family as somehow “deserving” of the tragedy being passed off as journalistic integrity. Sickening.

4 thoughts on “More from Mumbai, with an extra serving of bias”

  1. The terrorist incident in Mumbai is because of weak Indian society increasingly getting influenced by corrupt local politicians/ criminals like Raj Thackeray. In fact this person has the audacity to openly admire and act like Hitler and still the Indian Govt is not taking action against him. Read his interview on rediff “Raj Thackeray admires Hitler “( given on 14 Jun 2005 and his interview with Shoba de in Mumbai mirror (

  2. . . . and not a word about the 200 hindus that died and the sons and daughters they left behind. No one can accuse the hindus of controlling the media the way jews do!!!

  3. To say that this coverage has anything to do with race or religion is ridiculous. The Jewish victims were not the only people tortured during the attacks. These people weren’t trying to kill blacks, whites, Jews, Hindus, Christians or Buddhists. These people were trying to kill human beings and if they dont differentiate I dont see why we should.

  4. Monk: We all heard about the total death count of the mostly-Hindu native populace. And yet, I never heard the media try to marginalize the Hindus as, say, “ultra-Vaishnavas.”

    G-Rod: Yet they were the ones who recieved the worst of the torture, and the hostages killed the earliest. Given the idealogical views of an Islamic terrorist, this isn’t all that surprising. And if you read back over the coverage of the event, they specifically targeted Jews and Westerners – so, while they killed a lot of people indiscriminantly, it is not accurate to say they did not differentiate between any of their targets.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.