ZDF Obfuscates the Global Jihad

The following clip is an excerpt from a video posted by a German vlogger named Thomas at Digitaler Chronist Alternative (the original 16-minute video is here [in German]).

In his rant Thomas takes exception to what he calls the “framing” by the state broadcaster ZDF, which recently characterized Islamic terror attacks as “the fight between the Islamic and Christian worlds” on Twitter.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00   Here is the original tweet from this afternoon:
00:05   “On the 7th of January 2015 Charlie Hebdo was attacked. From Salman Rushdie’s
00:10   ‘Satanic Verses’ to the attack on the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in 2017 —
00:14   that was the fight between the Islamic and Christian worlds.”
00:21   Now I really have to ask, who came up with something like this
00:26   on the social media team from ZDF? Or to put it a different way,
00:32   is it only people working there who come up with something like this?
00:38   That is framing of the finest level. “That was the fight.”
00:43   OK? A fight normally doesn’t end in death.
00:49   I wouldn’t say so. When I hear, “There was a fight,” I don’t assume that 89 people were killed, and
00:55   in fact they were killed was under the cruelest of circumstances.
00:59   It was really nearly not of this world. Or the bomb attacks. Or people being threatened with death.
01:09   Or when people are killed on the street like the Dutch director [Theo van Gogh].
01:17   ZDF is brazen enough to describe this as a “fight” between the Christian and Islamic worlds.
01:26   Not to mention the fact that it takes two to fight.
01:29   In that case, there would be Christian terror attacks
01:33   or something similar, but there aren’t. So it is false on two counts.
01:39   Dear ZDF, we’re also sick of you. Imagine. It happens.
01:47   We have you in our focus, because we
01:53   don’t want you anymore. We don’t want your pseudo-journalism or your framing.

6 thoughts on “ZDF Obfuscates the Global Jihad

  1. Divide and conquer while the inbred “elites” finish off the looting operation.
    Look for an economic wipeout to know when the vacuum drain on all of the wealth is over.
    The bestest and brightestests have never heard of the best laid plans of mice and men.

  2. Two comments notwithstanding my great appreciation for Miss Piggy: after reading the English, I was wondering why the vlogger was upset at all, so I looked at the German.

    The German word in the video for “fight” is Streit, argument, quarrel, squabble. Whereas a “fight” allows physical violence too. So the vlogger is rightly upset that killings are being classed as squabbles, so to speak. After all, at 00:43 a fight can indeed end in death, think of many knife fights, but a quarrel not.

    I am also surprised he did not touch on what I think is the main point: Salman Rushdie’s book was his freedom of expression this side of anti-blasphemy law protecting Islam. Mass killings are merely freedom to express that kuffar shall die.

    ZDF cunningly equates a book offensive to official Islam with mass killings and thus implies that freedom of written opinion is the same as physical killing in a “squabble”. So is the killing justified under islam-friendly, anti-“hate speech” law?

    Another aspect of the framing the vlogger rightly identifies is that using the word “Streit” merges with the “Islam is a religion of peace that is being abused by terrorists” ukase that we hear from our Rulers daily, because a squabble/quarrel is amicable and non-fatal.

    • “The German word in the video for “fight” is Streit, argument, quarrel, squabble. Whereas a “fight” allows physical violence too.”

      I have to agree with you. A Streit can be violent, too, but it’s the (rare) exception, not the rule. When I have Streit with someone, I fully expect to survive it. Anyway the Digitale Chronist is right in criticising the ZDF. Using the word Streit in such a context is playing down the events in a way that would be ridiculous, if it wasn’t about people having been killed barbarously. It’s macabre and tasteless, to say the least, nut not at all surprising.

  3. There must be a translation problem. I’d be more than happy to hear a mainstream broadcaster in the US refer to the fight between the Christian world and the Islamic world.

  4. I, too, don’t see the problem here. He seems to be quibbling with the under-dramatic expression “fight” rather than with it’s exaggerated nature.
    Unless he’s confused, of course. But pointing out that there isn’t another party in this fight appears important. It is, indeed, a one-way battle so far.

  5. Reminds me of the way the MSM refer to “clashes” between Israeli security forces and “Palestinians”, when the latter are usually the instigators.

Comments are closed.