Expounding some of the above points:
10-point 1, Generalizations and stereotyping. The crimes of criminals of the group targeted with hate, no matter how similar or more benign than those committed by common criminals of other groups or the hater's own group, are generalised as if the whole group targeted with hate is criminal. The accusations are made indirectly, and with lots of fillers to make them appear legitimate and part of an objective argument. To any discerning, impartial observer, the message is very clear, all members of that group are criminals, evil, etc.
11-Elaborating on point 2, they search for, or fabricate the negative in what is strikingly positive. That is to say, they never, under any circumstances, admit the positive in the group they hate, let alone praise that positive or emphasize it. And naturally, they never have anything positive to say or to write about the group they hate, nor do they want to say anything positive about it.
Objectivity, facts, good and bad, reality, truth are all irrelevant; they are driven solely by their hate.
They strive to find negative in the positive, and then highlight it.
12-Similarly they strive to find the positive in the strikingly and indisputably negative of their own group, and reject any comparisons with the group they hate.
13-They consistently blatantly spin anything that disagrees with or refutes their views to make it appear as though they are right.
Example: George Jonas, of the National Post, writing that firing a French cartoonist from the paper he works for for alleged anti-Semitic innuendo was a contractual issue not one of freedom of Speech! To that extent he feels secure through the protection of his employers as long as he writes what pleases them, no matter how ludicrous and contrived. And to that extent he is willing to write any gibberish knowing it will be printed. And to that extent he and the paper show a deep disdain for the cognitive abilities of the readers.
14-On point 5, when hate is being explicitly expressed against Muslims in the media they will look the other way, find excuses for it, justify or support it, but never ever admit it is hateful and wrong, or how similar it is to, say, anti-Semitism.
Such a case is clear in the 'George Jonas' example above: Anti-Semitism firings are contractual, but Islam-hating is freedom of speech!
Or when the sadistic scandal of Abu Ghraib was exposed we had people - including American Congress members - making light of it, and belittling the abuse and torture of Iraqis in general.
Same with torture in Guantanamo, etc. The haters have no humanity, only hate in their hearts which blinds them to any human suffering no matter child or infirm, if it is of the group they hate.
So you will never find any compassion, any empathy, any concern expressed for the victims if they belong to the group they hate.
It's exactly the equivalent of anti-Semitism. Those who hate Jews have no sympathy for Jews no matter how deep their suffering may be or may have been. Those who are extreme in their hatred will go out of their way to make light of the suffering of the group they hate, while other lesser haters may simply be silent about the matter.
So in general, like Holocaust denial, haters of Muslims deny whatever and any suffering Muslims may be undergoing or have undergone.
We need to remember that The Holocaust was facilitated by the combination of haters - anti-Semites - who were given space in the media, and a leadership that shared their premise that Jews deserved to be hated.
If that combination ever comes about again in a predisposed western nation with Muslims as the target group, there is nothing to stop another holocaust from occuring. The descendents of The Holocaust perpetrators are the same, the nations are the same, the circumstances will be the same.
15-Twisting and warping events and news to suit their hateful purposes and highlighting - if insidiously - the Muslim angle of events through placing Muslim-related symbols next to evil and violence.
For example, in a column in The Toronto Sun, by Michael Coren, a subtitle that could have been anything else, says "Muhammad", standing alone just like that.
What was new about the topic was naming a teddy bear 'Muhammad' by a teacher in Sudan. Any subtitle but 'Muhammad' would have made the topic clear, since 'Muhammad' may be about anything at all in the world. It says nothing about the topic in question, and was placed there simply to associate more emphatically the name "Muhammad" with whatever hateful views the writer expresses.
Or the same with photos of a veiled woman placed next to any negative news about Muslims or about violence, etc.. The tactics are all juvenile, elementary and easily identifiable. Sadly, however, they do have an effect on ordinary readers who don't know anything about Muslims other than what they read in such media, and so are easily swayed by such imagery.
Please read refutations of such strategies in our articles section under the 'Hate' category section in the articles section and HaSM's page responding to hate opinions in the media. Such haters are exposed fully and their hateful views are torn apart and totally discredited.
Haters and the Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
(To be continued soon)
PLEASE READ SOME BASIC BACKGROUND INFO IN THE FOLLOWING:
