Blonde on Blonde

This is the blue-eyed face of the man Norwegian police suspect is responsible for the deaths of at least 91 people yesterday. "What we know is that he is right wing and he is Christian fundamentalist," said Norwegian deputy police chief Roger Andresen. "We have not been able to link him up to an anti-Islamic group." The online rantings of Anders Behring Breivik can be read here. And oh, the irony:

The problem is that Europe lost the Cold War already in 1950, the moment they allowed Marxists / anti-nationalists to ravage freely, without restrictions for the positions they couldhave and the power positions they had the opportunity to obtain the (teacher / professorpositions in particular...

Join groups that SIOE -- Stop the Islamicisation of Europe, Against Multiculturalism, join Progress Party, if anything.)

Watch the pages gatesofvienna, brussels journal, Jihad Watch, religionofpeace etc.Read Fjord Man's work "Defeating Eurabia". This is f as the perfect Christmas gift for familyand friend...

tell me one country where Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims without the Jihad.against Kafr (dhimmitude, systematic slaughter or demographic warfare)?

If indeed Breivik is the killer, and indeed Breivik's politics drove him to the slaughter, then he's unquestionably a terrorist. His choice of target would apply to that first quote I've chosen: the Euro-elites who "lost the Cold War already," through the dolchstosselegende of nefarious multiculturalism. Not, you'll notice, Muslim targets. (The presumptive "logic" would hold race traitors to higher standards.) And further irony: as I wrote yesterday, the complex-attack campaign structure is the signature of al-Qaida, here used by an Islamophobe. 

Going back to our discussion of profiling: were we to structure a hunt for terrorists centering on blonde, blue-eyed Christians with anxiety over creeping Dhimmitude, then a large swath of the Stop The Ground Zero Mosque crowd and the opponents of the Murfreesboro Mosque wouldn't be getting on an airplane. Does that sound fair? Of course it doesn't, and it shouldn't. One can hold perfectly noxious views about Islam without being a terrorist. (See what I did there?) The dhimmitude crowd shouldn't have to apologize for Breivik. But accordingly, they can't say that Muslims everywhere need to apologize for or denounce this-or-that Islamist-terrorist attack. 

Similarly, Will McCants of Jihadica gets attacked here for tweeting boasts of responsibility from online jihadi forums. It's a misguided assault: Will didn't hold the attributions as gospel, he pointed out the chatter stirred on the boards. Big difference. (Remember, what people say on the jihadi forums should be presumptively considered shit-talking and Internet gangsterism.)

But I don't want to criticize others without criticizing myself. A commenter on my post yesterday said I had crossed the line into presuming it was an al-Qaida/affiliated/inspired attack. My goal with that post was to analyze what we could glean about the tactics involved. But I never considered that the perp could be a homegrown Islamophobe, and accordingly, I joined the herd in presuming it was an Islamist-terrorist assault. I deserve criticism for this, and will strive to do better. 

Comments

[Vermontdevil]

At least you did a self-introspection. I did think it might be muslin extremist but we both didn't go out out way tweeting all the typical ills of Islam like right wingers did. I don't see them walking back or doing any self-introspection now or ever.

[Sam]

Agree. Very admirable of you to engage in some self critique. Perhaps the BBC and the American media can take a leaf out of you web-page. Caution should be the norm. It just exposed the western media as racist hypocrites and need to look at themselves before passing judgement. Western Governments must take seriously the hate speech of CHRISTIAN fundamentals. This man's actions can be repeated all over Europe.

[John Henninger]

What this incident in Norway proves is that terrorism, whether it be foreign of domestic, is a problem for the criminal justice system, and it cannot be eradicated through military force.

[fuster]

I don't see how the singular incident in Norway proves that, John.

Seems to me that people and groups practicing terrorism are diverse and sometimes military force is appropriate.

(Love the B on B header, Spencer.)

[John Henninger]

To fuster

The point is that terrorists really do not need a safe haven to commit terrorist acts, and it is really strategically futile to attack other countries, because acts of terrorism can be planned in a house or in an apartment complex.

[fuster]

I don't quite grasp your point, John, but if terrorists are identified, then you attack the terrorists, not "other countries" .... or houses or apartment complexes, no?

the conditions, the locations and the number and armaments of the terrorists help guide the determination of whether the approach is police or military or some hybrid.

[John Henninger]

To fuster

You really cannot determine if a terrorist act was state sponsered ( which it seems by your criteria requires military action) by the armaments that they use. For instance the 911 terrorists, who could be considered to be state sponsered since Afghanistan gave al-Qaeda a safe haven, bought their box cutters probably at the local hardware store. While domestic terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh and Jared Loughner aquired their more potent weapons in the United States. The truth is terrorists really do not need a state, in order to procure weapons for their atrocious acts.

[fuster]

John, state sponsorship is only one factor in determining whether it's a military response required and a military response isn't necessarily an attack on the state.

We send bombs to places where we can't send cops. Sometimes the places where we can't send cops are places where there's a state authority protected the recipients of our bombs, sometimes not.

Yemen may not sponsor terrorists targeting the US these days, but the state hasn't ability to stop them and we would not be likely to succeed if we send cops in arrest anybody.

Somewhat similarly, we would not do well to send cops in Pakistan, partially because Pakistan is a state that sponsors terrorists and partially because Pakistan is inhabited by terrorists that they don't necessarily sponsor but whom they would rather ignore than allow us to enter Pakistan's soil and arrest.

[company logo design]

Breivik is the perfect teabagger.... for over 100 yrs, right-wing nuts have taken the world to the brink... now the GOP is set to destroy the global economy....

[supra foot]

I like you on facebook and follow through google reader!