Do You Feel A Draft?
Climate Change Clowns Get Totally Owned Trying to Disrupt Scottie Scheffler on the...
Joe Biden Was Definitely Going to Attack Trump on This in the Debate....
Bill Maher Inadvertently Exposes the Dems' Racism on Immigration
My Record Really Stood Out
America Needs to Supercharge Nuclear Energy
'Thou Shalt Not Post the Ten Commandments!'
The Future of Democracy?
The Case For J.D. Vance
Trump Derangement Syndrome Is Raging Among the Left
OECD DOA
Biden's Aggressive Debate Plan
The WH Response to the Deaths of Innocent Americans Killed By Illegal Aliens...
Gunman Opens Fire on Synagogues In Russia, Killing Priest and Several Others
AOC Makes a Fool of Herself Trying to Advocate for Fellow Squad Member...
Tipsheet

NYT Does a Faceplant When They Declare Sri Lanka's Uprising More Peaceful Than January 6

AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena

They're just wrong about everything. Seriously, with the liberal media obsessing about January 6, did they even watch it? If they did, they could have caught what was very wrong with this New York Times piece about the Sri Lankan political crisis. 

Advertisement

Just to briefly recap, the island nation has seen its government collapse after mass protests over mismanagement of the economy forced the president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and all his underlings to resign. Rajapaksa eventually fled the country. Protesters also stormed the presidential palace during this period of unrest. You've all seen the photos; they're jumping into el presidente's pool. And apparently, this was more peaceful than January 6. I guess the staffers here at The Times forgot about what happened to the former Sri Lankan's house afterward (via Fox News): 

New York Times writer German Lopez interviewed colleague Emily Schmall about Sri Lanka protesters' takeover of their country's presidential palace in a newsletter published Sunday. During the interview, Lopez compared the Sri Lanka riot to the January 6 riot. The interview also highlighted root causes of the Sri Lanka protests, but neglected to mention the country banning chemical fertilizers. 

[...]

Myron Ebell, the director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment, noted that because of this, "all the crop yields have collapsed, they don't have any tea to sell because the tea harvest is so low. So, they have no revenues to buy stuff from overseas and their own food production for people to eat in Sri Lanka is not there. They're starving to death."

[...]

Schmall continued, "In Sri Lanka, there’s a sizable middle class. People are not used to scarcity, so they noticed immediately when things started disappearing from shelves. People were upset about that. And the ability to carry on became all but impossible in the last month or so."

[...]

Because of this, Schmall argued, the protesters intruded the palace. "But the protesters didn’t ransack the place. They started inviting the public to come in, but in an orderly fashion," she said. "After about 24 hours, a gleefulness overtook the place, and some people swam in the president’s pool." 

"They’d done it: They had forced this extremely powerful president — who was accused of war crimes, who was feared — to leave his own home and even the country. But they did it peacefully, without taking up arms," she said. She described these events as "a very Sri Lankan sort of revolution" that was "relatively low-key and polite." 

"I can’t help but compare this to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. This seemed much more peaceful," Lopez remarked.

"Oh, yeah. I couldn’t help thinking of it either," Schmall agreed. "There were several differences. For one, these people were not armed. It was also a bit spontaneous, and there was no clear leader. They did not do it in association with any politician or political party."

She continued, "But the big difference was that these protesters had widespread support. Ordinary Sri Lankans were applauding them and even participating. People who would otherwise never be involved in activism or protests were happily wandering around the properties, enjoying themselves and basking in the success of this movement."

Advertisement

Okay, what got set on fire on January 6? Was the White House torched a la War of 1812 on that day? Was the Capitol Building set ablaze? No. The "it was more peaceful than January 6" narrative dies when things get set on fire. Full stop. It's not a debate. The liberal media has been wrong about everything. From Russian collusion to COVID becoming an endemic, seasonal thing, they're just wrong. 

Also, is the liberal media now pro-revolutionary takeover now? I've been told for months that January 6 was a coup and how these uprisings were anti-democratic. If it has widespread support, then what the hell? Just hurl some politicians into the meatgrinder but do so peacefully. 

And the January 6 protesters weren't armed either. That's another left-wing media myth. And the part about no leader is immaterial. It's a mob. Either way, you cut it; it's a mob. So, mobs that liberal media folks like are okay, but not the other way around. How predictable. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement