Opinion: Norway and Terorrism
As the investigation continues into yesterday's horrid bombing and shooting in Norway, the facts of the case are starting to emerge, and the way they are are most curious indeed.
Right after the bombing, the wise pundits around the world claimed that this was an 'al-Qaeda' job, and the finger pointing toward the international terrorist group started in earnest. Hardly unsurprising, really. Jennifer Rubin, for example, over at the Washington Post, wrote a whole article on the dangers of cutting defense spending and how al-Qaeda is just around every corner, waiting to strike. She quotes Gary Schmitt at the right wing think tank American Enterprise Institute who said:
“There has been a lot of talk over the past few months on how we’ve got al-Qaeda on the run and, compared with what it once was, it’s become a rump organization. But as the attack in Oslo reminds us, there are plenty of al-Qaeda allies still operating. No doubt cutting the head off a snake is important; the problem is, we’re dealing with global nest of snakes.”
The Western Press, such as the BBC and the New York Times, were busy crafting stories that instantly pointed the finger at al-Qaeda, and our wise solons and pundit class were all ready to use it as an example for why we must continue to wage endless war in Muslim countries, and curtail the rights of Muslims in the west.
The "problem" is, this turns out to be quite different than what everyone believed, as the UK paper The Guardian posted today:
The killings, it now seems clear, were carried out by a 32-year old Norwegian, named by local media as Anders Behring Breivik, who had expressed far-right views, and had dressed as a policeman to carry out his bomb attack on government buildings in central Oslo before heading to the island of Utøya, where he shot at least 85 people.
Norway's Prime Minister,
Jens Stoltenberg, had this to say in the article:
[Stoltenberg] said he did not want to speculate on the motives of the attacks, but added: "Compared to other countries I wouldn't say we have a big problem with rightwing extremists in Norway. But we have had some groups, we have followed them before, and our police is aware that there are some rightwing groups."
And a police spokesman in Norway also said:
Norway's national police chief, Sveinung Sponheim, told the national broadcaster NRK that the suspected gunman's internet postings "suggest he has some political traits directed towards the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen".
A police official said the suspect appears to have acted alone in both attacks, and that "it seems like this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all."
Rather than a case of Islamist International Terror, this is a home grown case of domestic, right-wing terror. I imagine as the facts of the case continue to trickle out, we will find the motivation of Mr. Breivik's digusting attack on the innocent people in Oslo and on the island of Utøya.
One, thing is clear however. Now that the culprit of this hideous crime has been indentified as a domestic right-winger, the whole view of the crime has changed. For example, in the NY Times article on this story, we find little to suggest that Mr. Breivik might be a terrorist, except for noting he is being questioned under Norway's anti-terrorism laws.
What this madman has done is an act of terror, pure and simple. As the NY Times article referenced above points out:
Mr. Breivik had been known as polite and conscientious man by former colleagues. But his writings on a right-wing Web site, document.no, revealed another side, an abiding obsession with Marxists, Muslims and Norway’s multicultural ideals.
Though he does not call for violence in the postings, he decries the demographic change that has undermined Christian communities in places like Kosovo and Lebanon. Mr. Breivik asks, “Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful where Islam is involved? The only historical example is the society without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.).”
And the camp he attacked on the island of Utøya is a place where liberal Norwegians have gathered for years, and in fact the camp in particular he attacked was a Labor Party (left-wing) meeting:
The camp has been an important right of passage for the country’s young budding liberals for decades. The current prime minister attended the camp in the 1970s. “It was for me the safest place in the world,” said Khamshajiny Gunaratnam, 23, a member of the youth group’s board. “I still haven’t cried. I’m still in shock.”
Terorrism involves committing violence against people and "soft targets" rather than military and government "hard" targets, with the hope to scare people into demanding their government do something to stop the attacks. As the derranged Mr. Breivik seemed to think that blowing up a bomb in Oslo and then shooting young future leftist-Labor kids was the way to get his point across, this is terror, pure and simple. But apparently the New York Times doesn't get that, as they say in another article on the subject:
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 2004 and again in 2008, the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over after the death of Osama bin Laden, threatened Norway because of its support of the American-led NATO military operation in Afghanistan.
To their credit, Sky is calling this act terror and citing it as a failing of counter-terorrist groups to keep a closer watch on lone wolves and the rising power of the reactionary Right (and this is a very good article, by the way). But apparently, here in the United States at least, unless a deadly act is done by dark skinned people with beards and funny sounding, Middle Eastern names, it's not "terror" but something like "extremism." While terrorists are by definition extremists, not all extremists are terrorists, and it's misleading at least to conflate the two.
The word "terorrist" is absolutely meaningless nowadays. Non-Muslims who go on a rampage for what is pretty obviously a political purpose are not "terorrists," but when Muslims attack military bases in their own nation, against armies they see (right or wrong) as invading and occupying their country, they are not "soliders" but "terrorists."
Also, Mr. Breivik has been an avid reader and contributor to Pam Gellers' hysterical anti-Muslim "Atlas Shrugged" blog, and also Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer's equally hysterical Jihad Watch. Will these sites now be targeted as "hate sites" that promote bigotry and impell people indirectly to commit atrocities like what we saw in Norway yesterday? I guess only time will tell.
My heart goes out to the people of Norway, and especially to those that lost a loved one. May you all find peace and love in this time of horrid national tragedy.
Right after the bombing, the wise pundits around the world claimed that this was an 'al-Qaeda' job, and the finger pointing toward the international terrorist group started in earnest. Hardly unsurprising, really. Jennifer Rubin, for example, over at the Washington Post, wrote a whole article on the dangers of cutting defense spending and how al-Qaeda is just around every corner, waiting to strike. She quotes Gary Schmitt at the right wing think tank American Enterprise Institute who said:
“There has been a lot of talk over the past few months on how we’ve got al-Qaeda on the run and, compared with what it once was, it’s become a rump organization. But as the attack in Oslo reminds us, there are plenty of al-Qaeda allies still operating. No doubt cutting the head off a snake is important; the problem is, we’re dealing with global nest of snakes.”
The Western Press, such as the BBC and the New York Times, were busy crafting stories that instantly pointed the finger at al-Qaeda, and our wise solons and pundit class were all ready to use it as an example for why we must continue to wage endless war in Muslim countries, and curtail the rights of Muslims in the west.
The "problem" is, this turns out to be quite different than what everyone believed, as the UK paper The Guardian posted today:
The killings, it now seems clear, were carried out by a 32-year old Norwegian, named by local media as Anders Behring Breivik, who had expressed far-right views, and had dressed as a policeman to carry out his bomb attack on government buildings in central Oslo before heading to the island of Utøya, where he shot at least 85 people.
Norway's Prime Minister,
Jens Stoltenberg, had this to say in the article:
[Stoltenberg] said he did not want to speculate on the motives of the attacks, but added: "Compared to other countries I wouldn't say we have a big problem with rightwing extremists in Norway. But we have had some groups, we have followed them before, and our police is aware that there are some rightwing groups."
And a police spokesman in Norway also said:
Norway's national police chief, Sveinung Sponheim, told the national broadcaster NRK that the suspected gunman's internet postings "suggest he has some political traits directed towards the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen".
A police official said the suspect appears to have acted alone in both attacks, and that "it seems like this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all."
Rather than a case of Islamist International Terror, this is a home grown case of domestic, right-wing terror. I imagine as the facts of the case continue to trickle out, we will find the motivation of Mr. Breivik's digusting attack on the innocent people in Oslo and on the island of Utøya.
One, thing is clear however. Now that the culprit of this hideous crime has been indentified as a domestic right-winger, the whole view of the crime has changed. For example, in the NY Times article on this story, we find little to suggest that Mr. Breivik might be a terrorist, except for noting he is being questioned under Norway's anti-terrorism laws.
What this madman has done is an act of terror, pure and simple. As the NY Times article referenced above points out:
Mr. Breivik had been known as polite and conscientious man by former colleagues. But his writings on a right-wing Web site, document.no, revealed another side, an abiding obsession with Marxists, Muslims and Norway’s multicultural ideals.
Though he does not call for violence in the postings, he decries the demographic change that has undermined Christian communities in places like Kosovo and Lebanon. Mr. Breivik asks, “Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful where Islam is involved? The only historical example is the society without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.).”
And the camp he attacked on the island of Utøya is a place where liberal Norwegians have gathered for years, and in fact the camp in particular he attacked was a Labor Party (left-wing) meeting:
The camp has been an important right of passage for the country’s young budding liberals for decades. The current prime minister attended the camp in the 1970s. “It was for me the safest place in the world,” said Khamshajiny Gunaratnam, 23, a member of the youth group’s board. “I still haven’t cried. I’m still in shock.”
Terorrism involves committing violence against people and "soft targets" rather than military and government "hard" targets, with the hope to scare people into demanding their government do something to stop the attacks. As the derranged Mr. Breivik seemed to think that blowing up a bomb in Oslo and then shooting young future leftist-Labor kids was the way to get his point across, this is terror, pure and simple. But apparently the New York Times doesn't get that, as they say in another article on the subject:
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 2004 and again in 2008, the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over after the death of Osama bin Laden, threatened Norway because of its support of the American-led NATO military operation in Afghanistan.
To their credit, Sky is calling this act terror and citing it as a failing of counter-terorrist groups to keep a closer watch on lone wolves and the rising power of the reactionary Right (and this is a very good article, by the way). But apparently, here in the United States at least, unless a deadly act is done by dark skinned people with beards and funny sounding, Middle Eastern names, it's not "terror" but something like "extremism." While terrorists are by definition extremists, not all extremists are terrorists, and it's misleading at least to conflate the two.
The word "terorrist" is absolutely meaningless nowadays. Non-Muslims who go on a rampage for what is pretty obviously a political purpose are not "terorrists," but when Muslims attack military bases in their own nation, against armies they see (right or wrong) as invading and occupying their country, they are not "soliders" but "terrorists."
Also, Mr. Breivik has been an avid reader and contributor to Pam Gellers' hysterical anti-Muslim "Atlas Shrugged" blog, and also Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer's equally hysterical Jihad Watch. Will these sites now be targeted as "hate sites" that promote bigotry and impell people indirectly to commit atrocities like what we saw in Norway yesterday? I guess only time will tell.
My heart goes out to the people of Norway, and especially to those that lost a loved one. May you all find peace and love in this time of horrid national tragedy.