I posted a brief comment on Yahoo's story (see previous post) pointing out this contradiction: this guy was either acting alone or working with other jihadis. The story said he was doing BOTH.
When I initially posted, several people started giving it "thumbs up"--first six, then thirteen, and then (when I checked a few minutes later to see what the count was) my post disappeared !!
This is not the first time this has happened with Yahoo....they cannot stand it when someone notices that they "mis-report." So instead of allowing the comment to stand--"The emperor has no clothes!"--they delete it from the comment feed. Problem solved!
Two people did give my observation "thumbs-down": one person said that, just because the wannabe bomber contacted jihadis in Pakistan and later started collaborating with FBI agents who post as jihadis, this didn't necessarilly mean he was "affiliated" with them. Huh?!?!?!
The other person said that this was entrapment by the FBI (I addressed that in my previous post).
But obviously, several people recognized the point I initially made. This was no rogue who snapped and behaved in an irrational manner in the heat of the moment. This was a man who sought out contacts who would help him advance his plot, and who worked hard to cultivate relationships with like-minded people.
Yahoo often refuses to print comments that expose half-truths or bias in their stories. That's nothing new. Yet they will print comments by people who support the Yahoo bias....even if those comments make no sense. One person congratulated Yahoo on never once mentioning this guy is Muslim. Wow! And yet, he is also identified as a jihadi.
How many jihadis are not Muslim? Zero. Jihad is a Muslim construct. It does exist as a word in Arabic, and not every Arab is Muslim, but the political/martial manifestation of jihad is strictly Muslim BY DEFINITION.
It's like referring to someone as "rabbi"--obviously, that person would be Jewish, because there just aren't any Presbyterian or Ba'hai rabbis.
So Yahoo...go ahead, keep on censoring. No "news" organization can keep doing that so blatently and retain any credibility.