|18OctMMXI - Clk 2 Enlrg|
Even the title of this article is a lie: this was no prisoner swap, this was a payment of a ransom, in which a very high value item (a single Israeli soldier) was purchased with a mountainous supply of filthy, dim-witted, primitive Islamic scum.
Among the Palestinian prisoners was even a Jihadist Jane, whose story epitomizes the moral inferiority of this diseased group of proto-humanoids. Released along with the 1000-+ other would-be murdering martrys, Jane took advantage of the Jews' humanity in 2005, when Israel allowed Palestinians with special health needs to cross over, exceptionally, for care. Jane crossed over wearing a suicide vest, and when Israeli soldiers tried to stop her she attempted to detonate herself but failed (gross thought: did 72 male virgins await her in allah-land?). The Times can be commended for at least getting this part of the story fairly right:
The competitive compassion fanatics at the Times do that a lot - relying on a 3rd-party quote to indirectly convey their own personal views on a situation.
They do it again in the example below :
There is some reason for hope, though: in the comments section - and this is unusual - the vast majority of Times readers seem to place common sense and what is obviously the correct morality calculus over the politically correct formula always used by the NYT, wherein a group that is not winning against their natural superiors can never be wrong.
Here is one such example of this common sense reader comment:
Amanda Knox and Gilad Shalit are back with their families, far away from the protected group scum that brought on their tribulations, and the New York Times feels compelled to turn reality on its head and aim the klieg lights of world attention away from the real criminals.
The New York Times: Totally Failing to Comprehend HBD Since 1983.