(Warning: GRAPHIC) How the Media Uses Pictures to Protect Islam
Why did mainstream media widely disseminate the picture of Alan Kurdi -- the three-year-old Syrian child who tragically drowned in the Mediterranean -- despite never publishing pictures of Mideast children who are intentionally killed?
Did you, for instance, ever see this picture?
This little boy was murdered on Easter Sunday when Islamic suicide bombers, targeting Christians, attacked a crowded park. They murdered dozens -- mostly Christian women and children.
What about this picture?
This boy -- along with some 60 Christian worshippers -- was killed when Islamic jihadis attacked a church service in Baghdad in 2010 (click here to see what happened to the adults, including the Islamic suicide bombers).
What about this picture -- a 12-year-old Coptic Christian girl?
She was abducted and murdered in Libya last year. By who?
Well, by the U.S.-supported jihadis who ousted Gaddafi. Shortly after they did so, they issued a “reward” for anyone finding and killing Christians. (More graphic images here.)
Did the MSM show you this picture -- a 12-year-old Pakistani Christian girl?
Have you seen this picture? Why not?
Christian children are not the only ones slaughtered by Muslim jihadis for being “subhuman” “infidels.” The picture below shows a child who was murdered in Syria in 2012 by people the media then called “freedom fighters” -- today they are more commonly known as “ISIS” -- for being the son of Shias (who are seen as “infidels” no less than Christians).
The next picture? This toddler girl was reportedly chained and made to watch her Shia parents being executed. Based on another grizzly picture, her heart may have been carved out by the “rebels.”
The above pictures are only a small sampling of Christians and other “infidel” children killed by Islamic supremacists. Much more graphic images are available -- such as this picture of the beheaded and mangled corpse of a very young Buddhist girl in Thailand.
Back to our original question:
Why did the MSM – which you now know habitually ignores images of children killed for being non-Muslim “infidels” -- publish and disseminate the image of an ACCIDENTALLY drowned child far and wide?
Simple: For a desired effect. For a political agenda. In this case, the agenda was to prompt “sympathy and outrage at the inaction of developed nations in helping refugees.”
Look at how that picture manipulated French President François Hollande:
[Hollande called many] European leaders after the images [of Kurdi] were circulated in the media and told the leaders that the picture must be a reminder of the world's responsibility against refugees.
It also worked on British Prime Minister David Cameron. He said he felt “deeply moved” by the picture.
Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny found it “absolutely shocking.”
And perhaps the chief representative of the “mainstream media,” the New York Times, used the picture as a club to berate Americans: “Shame on us all for the death of Aylan Kurdi.”
That picture didn’t just encourage words. The widely disseminated image of that accidentally drowned child spurred the desired political outcome, too.
Because of it, countless Muslim migrants -- including ISIS operatives and sympathizers -- have been received into Western nations, far more than might have been received otherwise.
That’s our answer. That’s why they showed you the picture of Alan Kurdi, but none of the pictures above.
If the mainstream media intended to accurately report the news, the pictures you just saw for the first time would have been deemed more newsworthy than the picture of Alan. The pictures you just saw depict children who were INTENTIONALLY killed by Islam-inspired hate, whereas Kurdi died accidentally.
The former deaths we can actually do something about -- if we simply first acknowledge them. Whereas the tragedy that befell Kurdi is of the kind that will always plague man.
More pivotal questions:
Based on the widespread outrage and action elicited by the picture of Kurdi, would a picture of a Christian child killed for being an “infidel” -- if disseminated widely – provoke widespread “sympathy and outrage at the inaction of developed nations in helping” Christian minorities living under Islam?
Would European leaders express how “absolutely shocked” or “deeply moved” they are?
Would the NYT berate us for shirking our humanitarian duties?
Would Hollande proclaim that “the picture must be a reminder of the world's responsibility” for persecuted non-Muslims?
Further, rather than put their political counterparts in such a predicament, the mainstream media intentionally does not publish them at all.
Well, you have them now, along with access to social media and contact information for mainstream outlets. Let’s see how they respond.
For those who still need it spelled out: the MSM’s primary function is to normalize and popularize narratives that pave the way for certain political agendas. These narratives often have nothing to do with reality. They exist solely to manipulate people into support policy.
In this case, the narrative/political agenda is to maintain the farce that Islam is inherently peaceful and that the West needs to take in millions of Muslim migrants.
The above pictures of Christian and other “infidel” children mutilated and murdered by Muslims destroy that narrative, so you never got to see them before.
“These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, too; cutting the unborn child from the mother’s womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers’ eyes. Doing it before the mothers’ eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They’ve planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby’s face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby’s face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn’t it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say.”