Two people mourn the 77 victims killed in twin terror attacks in Norway.
Paula Bronstein/Getty Images
National Post Aug 5, 2011 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Aug 4, 2011 5:23 PM ET
By Clifford D. May
Who deserves the blame for the terrorist attacks in Norway? My answer would be the perpetrator and no one else — unless it turns out there really is a modern Knights Templar or some other organized movement that sent him on his mission of mass murder.
But there are those who disagree, who see this atrocity as part of a wider conspiracy — or, perhaps, as a convenient stick with which to beat their political and ideological opponents.
One example: The New York Times last week ran an editorial arguing that Anders Behring Breivik was “influenced by public debate and the extent to which that debate makes ideas acceptable.” The “broader” issue, says the Times, is that “inflammatory political rhetoric is increasingly tolerated.”
Which raises the questions: Who decides what constitutes inflammatory rhetoric? And if such rhetoric is unacceptable and intolerable, who should censor it and by what means? (Memo to young readers: Back in the day, great newspapers were defenders of free speech, including that which some would see as “inflammatory.”)
The Times editorial adds: “Even mainstream politicians in Europe, including Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France have sown doubts about the ability or willingness of Europe to absorb newcomers. Multiculturalism ‘has failed, utterly failed,’ Mrs. Merkel said last October.” The implication is clear: If these European leaders have doubts about the worldview and policies the Times and other avatars of progressive opinion endorse, they should take the opportunity to shut up about it.
A few days later, the Times brought in reinforcements, publishing an op-ed (memo to young readers: Back in the day, op-eds opposed rather than echoed newspapers’ editorial positions) by two Norwegian commentators, Jostein Gaarder and Thomas Hylland Eriksen. They asserted that “the hatred and contempt from which [Breivik] drew his deranged determination were shared with many others throughout the international right-wing blogosphere,” which they characterized as “Islamophobic” and consisting of “loosely connected networks of people — including students, civil servants, capitalists, and neo-Nazis. Many do not even see themselves as ‘right-wing,’ but as defenders of enlightened values, including feminism.”
Gaarder and Eriksen’s meaning is plain, too: Those concerned about such issues as gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia, honor killings within Muslim communities in the West and the genital mutilation of Muslim girls are, objectively, on the side of neo-Nazis and therefore they also should put a sock in it.
Exploiting atrocities to settle political scores through guilt by association is a nasty game, but if we are going to play it, I’d look elsewhere. I’d start with Reuters or, more precisely, what we might call the Reuters Doctrine. After the attacks of 9/11, there were individuals and groups (emphatically including the policy institute I head) making the case that terrorism should be defined as the use of violence against civilians to further a political cause, and that expressing a grievance by intentionally killing other people’s children is never justified.
We argued that civilized people, of whatever religion or nationality, ought to be able to agree on this principle, and, if they did, then those who target innocents would be seen only as terrorists, unequivocally condemned by the “international community.”
Reuters disagreed. The global news agency took the position that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” This expression of moral relativism was embraced by many in the media, on the far left and far right, in academia, government, and transnational organizations. And that may indeed have paved the way for Breivik — who unquestionably fancies himself a fighter for European freedom — to believe he could use terrorism to focus attention on his grievances without de-legitimizing those grievances. If it works for militant Islamists, why not for a militant Norwegian?
In his rambling 1,500-page “manifesto,” Breivik lists the names of many individuals whose writing he has read and who are therefore now being accused of membership in the “Islamophobic blogosphere.” Among them: Mark Steyn, Theodore Dalrymple, Melanie Phillips, Bruce Bawer, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom, and Pamela Geller. (And he cites Foundation for Defense of Democracies reports and congressional testimony on such topics as terrorist financing and Islamist oppression of Christians in the Middle East.) Anyone familiar with these sources knows that the views they hold vary widely — and not one advocates terrorism.
Breivik’s manifesto also includes digressions on George Orwell, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, and William James. Does that imply that those writers share the blame for Breivik’s murders? Shall we burn their books? (Memo to young readers: Read them while you can.)
Or should we reject as illogical and hypocritical the charge that anyone critical of Islamism is beyond the pale and tarred with Breivik’s brush? Consider: Both the Sierra Club and “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski are committed to fighting ecological degradation. Does that mean that all environmentalists have blood on their hands? (Breivik plagiarized extensively from Kaczynski’s writings for his manifesto, perhaps suggesting that he sees militant environmentalists as a model.)
Back to the Times editorial: It states that there is a “disturbing, and growing, intolerance across Europe for Muslims and other immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.” Where is the evidence for that? Which European countries have closed their borders to Muslim refugees? Which European countries have passed the equivalent of Jim Crow laws? Which European mass murderers have targeted innocent Muslims? The answer is none, but of course innocent Muslims have been slaughtered — and continue to be slaughtered — by Iran’s rulers, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Tehran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq. Do the math: Muslims, more often than Christians, Jews, or Hindus, are the victims of Islamic militants.
But nowhere in Europe do Muslims suffer oppression and discrimination on the level that religious and ethnic minorities do in most of the 50 or so countries that hold membership in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. (Can you find any editorials on this issue in the Times or other major newspapers?)
To be sure, there may be some Europeans and Americans who suspect that all or most or too many Muslims endorse the crimes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Anwar al-Awlaki, and other self-proclaimed jihadis. That’s wrong. But it’s no less wrong to encourage the fiction that Muslims are victims and that Christians, Jews, and Hindus are their victimizers.
This construct already has led to a weird sort of affirmative action for Islamic extremists. For example, Naser Jason Abdo was awarded “conscientious objector” status by the U.S. Army not because he was morally opposed to killing but because he was morally opposed to killing fellow Muslims. Imagine if a U.S. soldier had refused deployment to the Balkans saying he couldn’t defend Bosnian Muslims against Serbian Christians. You think he’d have been regarded as a conscientious objector and given an honorable discharge?
If there were ever any doubts about the conscientiousness of Abdo’s objections to taking up arms, he cleared those up following his release from the Army when he immediately stocked up on guns and explosives, apparently intending to replicate the massacre carried out by Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood.
Hasan is another instance of what might be called reverse discrimination: Had he been a white supremacist instead of a Muslim supremacist, do you think his views would have been ignored and he would have been able to rise in the American military as he did?
Toward the end of his manifesto, Breivik argues that “democratic change” is an illusion and that the only answer is “armed resistance.” He predicts that “more moderate” political efforts will be “persecuted” and that attempts at “peaceful reform will be crushed,” leaving violence as the only alternative.
By demonizing those concerned by the pathologies afflicting the Muslim world and emanating from it, Times editorial writers and their allies are actually giving credence to Breivik’s worldview. Memo to young readers: Back in the day, editorial writers would at least have perceived the irony.
National Review Online
Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and political Islam.
.Posted in: Full Comment, World Politics Tags: Anders Behring Breivik, Clifford D May, double standard, Islamic terrorism, jihadists, journalism, media, Norway, Norway attacks, Norway terror attack, Norway terror attacks, terrorism .
***
Showing 20 of 87 comments
Hesiod
Within Canada, citizens are encouraged to tolerate many beliefs. But what people happen to believe, is not always true. In this regard belief is like theory, and as there can be good theories and bad theories, so too we can have good beliefs and bad beliefs. But within a climate of toleration, there is a tendency to not question the beliefs that the citizenry happens to uphold, and there is even the suggestion, that by definition any belief is acceptable, and any personal interpretation of what might be real, is as good as any other. We are thoroughly shocked when an individual like Anders Breivik explodes on to the scene, and we wonder how Islamic terrorists can even exist. But the fact is, that some people do not only believe falsely, but also set out to indiscriminately impose their false beliefs on others. But if we are unsure of what is truthful, and what is reasonable, we too readily become the unsuspecting victims not only of violence but also deceit. show more show less
Like 4 hours ago 1 Like .
rexx1
I'm surprised that no one has blamed Norweigan death metal for this act of terrorism. show more show less
Like 5 hours ago 1 Like .
mrbudhafreak
I've heard Norwegian death metal. Blaming it would make sense. show more show less
Like 3 hours ago in reply to rexx1
0 Like
.
Stephenville Expatriate
Read Robert Fulford on cultural relativism for more clear insight into this intellectual malaise:
"......While attempting to express kindness and charity, it demeans individuals by deciding beforehand that they should be judged by what group or nationality they come from. It emphasizes the limitations of life rather than the possibilities and smugly assumes that all of us are explained by the miseries of our past. It offers lifetime membership in the culture of excuse to anyone who has suffered and it invites them to petition for special treatment. It damages most those it pretends to help."
http://fullcomment.nationalpos... show more show less
Like 6 hours ago 2 Likes .
longsword
Perhaps you could counterpoise this with a conception of "cultural absolutism" as the antithesis to this cultural relativism (or, really, moral relativism contra moral absolutism). Would be interested to know where the dividing line is. show more show less
Like 6 hours ago in reply to Stephenville Expatriate
0 Like
.
Eliyahu
Memo to young readers: this is a typical crypto-western white Christian supremacist article. This is another pathetic attempt at putting all the blames in one basket (case). For example the long tedious whining about New York Time editorial that ended with: "Back to the Times editorial: It states that there is a “disturbing, and growing, intolerance across Europe for Muslims and other immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.” Where is the evidence for that?" Mr. May assume people are not intelligent enough to know about the banning minarets and hijabs in Europe. He tried his best to shift the main theme of the Breivik manifesto which is pro-Christian, pro-Zionist, anit-Muslim, anti-multiculture, xenophobic and anti-socialist, to George Orwell, Mark Twain, and even to the environmentalist!? One more sharp contrast in the article: Mr. May was very quick to label Naser Jason Abdo as Islam extremist and major Hasan as well. We have yet to see Mr. May call Breivik as a Christian terrorist. Another overlooked point: Breivik slaughtered mostly socialist youth Abdo and Hasan were going after military personnel. Memo to young readers: beware of people with slippery tongue, read widely, question everything, and draw your own conclusion. show more show less
Like 8 hours ago 1 Like .
Four-Footed Messiah
And why am I starting to read "that's racist!" as "that's heresy!"?
show more show less
Like 8 hours ago in reply to Eliyahu
0 Like
.
Four-Footed Messiah
And why is it that non-whites who want to protect their cultures from "Americanization" are brave and right, while whites who wish to resist Islamization are racist?
show more show less
Like 8 hours ago in reply to Eliyahu
4 Likes .
Four-Footed Messiah
Why not whine about the fact that Saudi Arabia does not allow churches or temples or synagogues in its country?
Why is it only non-white, non-Western cultures are allowed to protect themselves?
show more show less
Like 8 hours ago in reply to Eliyahu
5 Likes .
longsword
Duh... Ignorance is bliss, I suppose... for quite a lot of people. Why not google up "Christian proselytization in Israel", eh? Discover for yourself that you're a walking bundle of nervous contradictions. show more show less
Like 7 hours ago in reply to Four-Footed Messiah
0 Like
.
Barmon
Nice article. None the less there is a right wing faction that is bent out of shape and should be criminalized. Muslim groups also fall under this same umbrella.
Any individual or group who posits that god, creation, - or whatever, made the world the way it is with intention,, and that consequently the relationship between the powerful and their masses, men and woman, man and wife, one race versus another, land and race, etc. cannot evolve or change because that's the way it was made, is walking down a self-serving and dangerous path. When such beliefs result in violence or the death of innocents it's supporters belongs in jail or worse. These are "sins" of the right. The left commit different sorts of crimes. show more show less
Like 8 hours ago 2 Likes .
longsword
George Habash, former leader of The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was a Christian.
10% of Israeli Arabs are Christians. 4% of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank are Christian. That is exactly the same percentage of Muslims in Europe.
Have to wonder what kind of drugs you people are on. Maybe the same kind Breivik took to make himself feel "manly" and "aggressive"? show more show less
Like 8 hours ago 1 Like .
longsword
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.(W.B. Yeats: The Second Coming) show more show less
Like 9 hours ago 0 Like
.
BBridges
Brilliant article. I do think that the media today has far more "inflammatory political rhetoric", but freedom of speech is worth such byproducts and in the end, individuals need to be held accountable for their actions no matter the words they read.
To restrict freedoms of any sort of this would be foolish beyond belief. It would send a clear message to those who seek social change via violence that yes, indeed it does work. We need to show them that no amount of violence will sway our minds, instead it will only add mroe steel to our resolve that a life without freedoms is a life not worth having.
The price of freedom in human history has always been blood, yet far more was shed to obtain that freedom than to protect it...... We would do well to remember that when any thought of eliminating freedoms comes up, because to ever get them back will be a far bloodier business than to just defend it in the first place! show more show less
Like 12 hours ago 5 Likes .
longsword
"Brilliant article."
But, sadly, not such a brilliant response. The NP engages in just as much censorship as other news media, "censorship" so hypocritically denounced by its fans and followers. The NP excised and extinguished the entire critical commentary from its editorial about the Oslo bombings and the rush to judgment that is was Moooslims wot dun it. But that's OK... censorship for a "good cause" is alright, I suppose... meaning... democracy is great, as long as I have more of it than anyone else.
The same kind of extravagant deranged narcissism as Breivik espoused, in fact. show more show less
Like 7 hours ago in reply to BBridges
1 Like .
realasrain
The way you guys bring up the Koran when someone brings up a non-Muslim terrorist, you remind me of Lyndon LaRouche blaming Nazism on British bankers or even Willis Carto's Yockey-inspired revisionists. It's purely diversionary to the point. show more show less
Like 12 hours ago 1 Like .
YYZCanada
Expand I've been advocating that definition of terrorism for years now. Moral relativism is objectively immoral - it allows the immoral targeting of innocents (provided you dislike them enough).
Fantastic article. show more show less
Like 13 hours ago 4 Likes .
longsword
Expand Hypocrite! (I guess Jesus had a few choice words to say about that). The fact is, reactionary conservatives only insist that others (especially Moooolsims) observe an absolute moral standard, while they reserve for themselves the option of observing only a conditional, pragmatic, and relative one. Thus, reactionary right-wing "Christian" terrorism has "understandable" causes, while reactionary conservative "islamist" terrorism has none and no legitimate grievance. That's "moral relativism" by any definition. And you just proved yourself an "absolute" hypocrite. show more show less
Like 7 hours ago in reply to YYZCanada
1 Like .
LouiseJP
Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.
Thomas Mann, show more show less
Like 14 hours ago 5 Likes .
realasrain
Shouldn't this be about who killed those kids.
""He was asked several times if he had been helped, but declined to answer," lawyer Geir Lippestad told Oslo daily VG after Breivik was interviewed on Wednesday for the third time by police." show more show less
Like 13 hours ago in reply to LouiseJP
1 Like .
________________
WHAT DO YOU THINK ?
Các anh chị nghĩ thế nào, có ý kiến, phê bình gì qua bài viết "Clifford D. May: The media’s double standard on terrorism" và 20 trong số "87 Comments" của độc giả ?
conbenho xin được cùng ý kiến, chia sẻ nhận xét của tác giả ngay từ phần "mở đầu" của bài viết:
"Who deserves the blame for the terrorist attacks in Norway? My answer would be the perpetrator and no one else — unless it turns out there really is a modern Knights Templar or some other organized movement that sent him on his mission of mass murder."
Thiển nghĩ không thể nhằm vào bất cứ lý do gì cho dù là "chủ nghĩa", "học thuyết", "lý tưởng", "ảnh hưởng tôn giáo", "ảnh hưởng chính trị","tâm lý", "xã hội" ... hay bất cứ lý do nào khác để có thể bào chữa, ngụy biện cho hành vi giết người một cách dã man tàn bạo với sự chuẩn bị có kế họach rõ ràng quy mô trong một thời gian dài như tên khủng bố giết người đã làm, đã cướp đi, đã hủy diệt gần 100 mạng người, hầu hết là những người tuổi đời còn quá trẻ, một số vẫn còn trong tuổi ngây thơ 14, 15 ...
Hãy nhìn tấm hình trên, và còn nhiều hình ảnh khác nữa nói lên sự đau thương, mất mát của những người còn lại, chưa kể thân nhân ruột thịt, ông bà cha mẹ, anh em , họ hàng, bạn bè của những nạn nhân đã bị tên khủng bố tàn sát . Họ đã, đang và sẽ đau đớn, thương tâm đến đâu, không thể nào hình dung được, không thể nào diễn tả hết được sự mất mát quá to lớn mà trong khỏanh khắc tang thương đột nhiên phủ lên gia đình họ ...
Vì vậy, conbenho thiển nghĩ, kẻ sát nhân đã giết gần 100 mạng người PHẢI chịu trách nhiệm, PHẢI đền TỘI ÁC hắn đã làm, không ai khác, như tác giả Clifford D. May đã viết:
"My answer would be the perpetrator and no one else" . , trừ trường hợp ngọai lệ như tác giả Clifford D. May đã đề cập tới trong phần "mở đầu" bài viết.
Xin được chân thành cám ơn tác giả Clifford D. May với bài viết "Clifford D. May: The media’s double standard on terrorism"
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
06082011
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment