Monday, July 25, 2011

Christian Anti-Muslim Terrorists & The Racist Media :From Pamela Geller to Anders Behring Breivik — how Islamophobia turned deadly in Norway — War in Context

Mirror repost from War In Context July 23, 2011

If the terrorists is white and Christian then by definition according to the Western Media it is erroneous to call that person a terrorists since all terrorists by definition according to the Western Media are Muslims and usually dark skinned .

"When terrorism has a white face it invariably gets marginalized in the popular narrative. Thelone wolf, the outsider, the sociopath — in many cases these portraits of misanthropic, isolated individuals who turn to violence are quite accurate."

From Pamela Geller to Anders Behring Breivik — how Islamophobia turned deadly in Norway

by PAUL WOODWARD on JULY 23, 2011
When terrorism has a white face it invariably gets marginalized in the popular narrative. Thelone wolf, the outsider, the sociopath — in many cases these portraits of misanthropic, isolated individuals who turn to violence are quite accurate.
The Oslo killings, however, should be seen in a different light since there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the perpetrator of this atrocity, even if it turns out he was acting alone, was very much part of a political movement — a movement whose leading ideologues regularly appear onFox News and have high public profiles.
Anders Behring Breivik, the 32-year-old Norwegian man widely assumed to be responsible for the mass murder that took place in Oslo yesterday, is being referred to as a Christian fundamentalistin many press reports.
His comments appearing on the political website Document.nosuggest however that this is a rather misleading description. His views, as revealed there, are ideological rather than religious with his preeminent focus being his opposition tomulticulturalism. (Quotations of Breivik appearing below come from a translation provided by Doug Saunders.)
In the United States, one of the most prominent public faces of the movement to which Breivik belongs is that of the notorious right-wing, pro-Israel, Islamophobic blogger, Pamela Geller, whose principal mouthpiece is Atlas Shrugs.
The poster below shows a recent event which she backed, along with Robert Spencer who operates Jihad Watch.
The World War Two iconography they employ — battleships, tanks and squadrons of bombers — makes it clear that they regard their campaign against “Islamization” as a kind of war. One of the battles in that war played out in Oslo yesterday.

Breivik, who probably sees himself as one of SIOE’s “freedom fighters,” describes himself as a cultural conservative and anti-Marxist liberal. In his comments at, he says little about his religious beliefs and seems to see his Christian identity primarily as a cultural identity. He writes:
I myself am a Protestant and baptized / confirmed to me by my own free will when I was 15
But today’s Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like the minimalist shopping centers. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic. In the meantime, I vote for the most conservative candidates in church elections.
The only thing that can save the Protestant church is to go back to basics.
Breivik is much more specific in identifying the sources from whom he takes his own ideological direction: Robert Spencer, Fjordman, Atlas [Pamela Geller], Analekta [Informatics], Gates of Vienna, The Brussels Journal, and The Religion of Peace.
These are the preeminent voices promoting fear and hatred of Islam across Europe and America. But they also form — at least in Breivik’s mind — the “epicenter” of “political analysis” on the threat posed to cultural conservatives by multiculturalism in Europe and America. He recommends Fjordman’s book, “Defeating Eurabia,” as “the perfect Christmas gift for family and friends.”
Do any of the leaders of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and Stop Islamization of Europe(SIOE) advocate that their “freedom fighters” should adopt violent tactics such as those employed by Breivik? Perhaps not. Indeed, I have little doubt that in the coming days we will hear many vociferous disavowals of their having any association with the Norwegian. But have no doubt, while they might have a sincere revulsion for Breivik’s actions, they cannot so easily disassociate themselves from the ideas that drove him to murder almost a hundred innocent people.
Two years ago, Breivik called on fellow Norwegians to form a youth action group “that represents our ideological platform (anti-racist but critical of multiculturalism / Islamization etc).” He saw the group developing as part of Stop Islamization of Europe or as a new group that would model itself on SIOE and the English Defense League.
“For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ[ently]. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies,” Breivik writes. There is a whiff of the Bush doctrine here — that we should not differentiate between terrorists and those who harbor them. There’s also a hint of Bin Laden’s idea of the near enemy and the far enemy.
Breivik argues that cultural conservatives should not identify their main opponents as Jihadists, but instead should focus their attention on those he regards as the “facilitators” of Jihadists, namely, the proponents of multiculturalism. Hence his vehement opposition to Norway’s Labour Party and its leader, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.
Those in the anti-Islam movement who now want to distance themselves from Breivik will proclaim that they are opponents of hatred and maybe that’s true — but that’s how he sees himself too: as a man dedicating his life to combating the “hate ideologies.”
As the last decade has demonstrated, whether it’s on the level of governments or individuals, those who take up a banner in the name of a crusade against hatred have a surprising willingness to employ violence in pursuit of that goal.

and from Glenn Greenwald this scathing criticisms of the Mass Media and government officials who believe only Muslims commit terrorist acts .
Any act no matter how horrifying when committed against civilians by a White perpetrator the act by definition is not therefore to be seen as a Hate Crime, or an act of terrorism and to this the American media especially appeals to its absurd notion of a Lone Wolf , Lone gunman -Heaven forbid that fingers be pointed at Christian and secular Western Style fanatical individuals and groups which use the most Hate filled racist rhetoric.
When Ann Coulter for instance publicly calls for "Killing Ragheads" or "Camel Jockeys" (her terms not mine) and invading their countries which the US is still doing and then she says they should be converted to Christianity or slaughtered we are told that she has a right to say such things even if what she is calling for is ethnic and cultural and racial Genocide. If she were a Muslim American calling for such actions against Whites and Christians or Jews Coulter and the media would go ballistic saying such a person should be silenced for advocating Genocide.
You will find similar rhetoric used by Pamela Geller , Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer , Andrew McCarthy , Michelle Bachmann, Sara Palin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the Fox News gang and even some at CNN or the other major US networks or Skynews in al as they claim all Muslims are involved in one way or another in forcing their religion and Sharia Law on the whole world and will do so by any and all means necessary.

Of course this sounds a lot like what the Europeans did in establishing their Empires around the world though these days the Evil Empire is unfortunately the United States with its belief that it is acting according to Divine Will . Since Americans believe that the Christian God created the Universe ; put Adam and eve in the garden then tossed them out and shortly told Noah to build an Ark and followed this up with Abraham, Moses and Jesus followed by God's greatest creation AMERICA-The City On The Hill- according to American Christian Nationalists and they therefore believe that all actions on the part of the American government is "JUST" by definition.
What these pundits, media superstars etc. they will claim is only words and they claim words as in speech and the use of Hate Filled Rhetoric combined with propagandistic images surely can have no effect on the listeners or viewers but this is just how fanatics of one sort or another have been able to stir people up and to commit actions that otherwise they would not think of committing ie the government of Rwanda's call for Genocide in the 1990s or the Call to "True Serbians" to massacre those whom they believe were not true Serbians and were involved in some sort of conspiracy to destroy "Greater Serbia" or of course we can look at how so many Americvans were fooled into supporting the bloody , brutal and unnecessary war in Iraq or that in Libya or in the 1960s Vietnam or Hitler's ability through speeches, images, film , orchestrated gatherings was able to mobilize and to convince millions of Germans that they as a Nation and a people had been stabbed in the back by a Jewish Conspiracy and as the Superiour race had the right to take over as much of the world as they needed .

The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism"
BY GLENN GREENWALD at, July 23, 2011

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates. The morning statement issued by President Obama -- "It's a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.

But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals :

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks.

"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.

Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT -- first noticed by Richard Silverstein -- explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.

In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:

How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?

What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't)...

and so it goes,

No comments: