Right-wing commentators and extremists, who blames Muslims for Friday's terror attacks in Norway, have sought to justify their prejudices - or just blamed them anyway.
Right-wing commentators and extremists, the first to point the finger of blame at ‘them bleeeedin’ Muslims’ for Friday’s terror attacks in Norway, far from admit their prejudicial jumping to conclusions and offering a simple “sorry”, have sought to justify their actions – or just blamed Muslims anyway.
Foremost among them was the EDL, forever claiming to be “not racist” like the BNP, who further exposed themselves for the deluded, hate-filled bigots they are. Incredibly, they have accused Norway of a “cover up” over the attacks.
As Political Scrapbook reports, the official EDL London Facebook page has claimed a “cover up by the left”, laying out supposed evidence for their conspiracy theories, blaming a media “cover up”, and, bizarrely, claiming far-right fanatic Anders Behring Breivik was more like “a rich kid belonging to uaf”.
But it’s not just in the gutter where such sentiments lie.
On the Telegraph blog, James Delingpole, pointedly failing to utter a single word of condemnation of Breivik or his ideology, mentions:
“USS Cole, and the Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam bombings, and the Madrid train bombings, and 7/7, and the ‘Mumbai’ Massacre and the shoebomber plot and the Heathrow plot and the LAX plot and the New York car bomb plot and the Fort Hood massacre and, oh, yeah, 9/11…”
Note the use of quotes around Mumbai. Seems it all went wrong when the colonial names were ditched in Delingpole’s mind.
Even Labour MP Tom Harris (yes, a Labour MP) couldn’t help himself, with a ‘I know I shouldn’t have blamed the Muslims BUT…’ validation of his views:
“I got it wrong and I apologise. I should not have jumped to conclusions, especially not so early on in such a terrible sequence of events.
“But (and of course there’s a “but” or I wouldn’t be writing this), the palpable relief that swept through the left when the identity of the terrorist was made known – a 32-year-old Norwegian christian fundamentalist – was revealing. Here, thank God, was a terrorist we can all hate without equivocation: white, christian and far right-wing.”
And, just as with Delingpole, no real condemnation of Breivik, compared to the paragraphs of condemnation of Islamist terrorism.
In the Sun, meanwhile, despite splashing with “‘Al-Qaeda’ massacre: Norway’s 9/11” on Saturday, today, a massive picture of Amy Winehouse and just half a column on Norway.
As the excellent Charlie Brooker wrote in today’s Guardian:
“Soon, the front page of Saturday’s Sun was rolling off the presses. “Al-Qaeda” Massacre: NORWAY’S 9/11 – the weasel quotes around the phrase “Al Qaeda” deemed sufficient to protect the paper from charges of jumping to conclusions.”
It won’t surprise you that Fox News gets a mention from Brooker as well:
“Some remained scarily defiant in the face of the new unfolding reality. On Saturday morning I saw a Fox News anchor tell former US diplomat John Bolton that Norwegian police were saying this appeared to be an Oklahoma-style attack, then ask him how that squared with his earlier assessment that al-Qaida were involved. He was sceptical. It was still too early to leap to conclusions, he said.
“We should wait for all the facts before rushing to judgment. In other words: assume it’s the Muslims until it starts to look like it isn’t – at which point, continue to assume it’s them anyway.”
Finally, with the likes of the Mail, Express and Tom Harris in mind, Brooker concludes:
“As more information regarding the identity of the terrorist responsible for the massacre comes to light, articles attempting to explain his motives are starting to appear online. And beneath them are comments from readers, largely expressing outrage and horror. But there are a disturbing number that start, ‘What this lunatic did was awful, but…’
“These ‘but’ commenters then go on to discuss immigration, often with reference to a shaky Muslim-baiting story they’ve half-remembered from the press.
“So despite this being a story about an anti-Muslim extremist killing Norwegians who weren’t Muslim, they’ve managed to find a way to keep the finger of blame pointing at the Muslims, thereby following a narrative lead they’ve been fed for years, from the overall depiction of terrorism as an almost exclusively Islamic pursuit, outlined by ‘security experts’ quick to see al-Qaida tentacles everywhere, to the fabricated tabloid fairytales about ‘Muslim-only loos’ or local councils ‘banning Christmas’.”
Islamist extremism is a real threat, and this blog has called on the Left to examine itself or tackle any assistance, unwittingly or otherwise, it may give to it. But, given that Breivik quoted extensively from right-wing UK newspapers in his ‘manifesto’, you would think this is the time for the Right to do so similarly, rather than beat the anti-Islam drum.
48 Responses to “Norway tragedy: The hard-right haters are still going on about Islam”
Ahmed
“Repugnant. I don’t legitimise terrorists, who will always find some way to justify why they slaughter defenceless civilians. Comment by Ed’s Talking Balls on July 25, 2011 at 3:57 pm”
Neither do I. But the fact is, a lot of the people you call “Islamic extremists” are not “terrorists”. Like al-Qadrawi. or Raed Salah. And there are people on the Left who agree with these peoples opinion on a number of matters. This does not make them apologists for Islamic extremism – as I said, that is a myth. It just means they support many of the causes these so called Islamic extremists are fighting for.
And get off your high horse and stop pretending you care about defenceless civilians. When a drone fires a hellfire missile at a terrorist who is in their compound with their wife and children, killing all of them, do you cry out against that? No. Because you take the view that defenceless civilians being killed is justifiable as long as we kill a terrorist who might plan an attack that kills me or my family. So, to protect your own backside, you DO side with the killing of defenceless civilians.
Ed's Talking Balls
It would be nice to be clear precisely which causes these extremists (I’ll omit the “so-called”) are fighting for. As I’ve said, terrorists frequently cite various causes to legitimise, in their minds and the minds of their followers, what would otherwise rightly be seen an wanton, utterly inexcusable violence.
Also, to the extent that I am on a moral high horse, there is a difference between defenceless civilians killed in office blocks by fanatics who have hijacked planes and defenceless civilians in the vicinity of known terrorists being sought by drones. At least in the latter case there is a legitimate target. Murdering innocent people deliberately is worlds away from the example you give.
Anon E Mouse
Ahmed – It’s a mindset that would allow an individual to like yourself to suggest that just because you disagree with Ed’s Talking Balls position you immediately claim “Because you take the view that defenceless civilians being killed is justifiable”.
Where did he say it was right to kill civilians or are you just the usual smear merchant that frequents this fine blog?
And whilst you’re at it how about you condemn Islamic nutters who advocate violence against homosexuals and do not treat woman equally and insist they wear death shroud burqas when they are outside in hot weather like Saudi Arabia.
I won’t hold my breath Ahmed…
13eastie
Shamik,
This is, I’m afraid, a most ill-conceived article, and it’s demonstrative of just the kind of double standards, labelling and stigmatisation that we are led to believe was its inspiration.
“Hard-right haters”? Are we to take seriously, Shamik, your application of this label to James Dellingpole? You may take issue with his views (many do, but he is respected by a good many others), and you may even dislike him as a person. But which facts demonstrated on your supposedly “evidence-based” blog do you feel permit you to besmirch him by seeking to count him among the likes of the EDL and BNP? Where has he been shown to be “hard-right” or express hatred for anyone?
Your happy confusion of right-wing’ (i.e anything that is NOT ‘progressive’) with extremism is frankly pathetic, and such “we have a monopoly on tolerance” sanctimony says a great deal more about you than anyone else.
You are guilty, also, of wilfully conflating Islam with Islamism.
This is a distinction many take great care to make. I’m sure you know the difference. Without further explanation from you, this appears on the face of it to be borne simply of a desire to portray those who criticise the latter as foes of the former. This is wholly disingenuous.
Why do so many Westerners believe so readily that they are under threat from Islamists? The simple fact is that Islamist rhetoric states this to be the case. And since such threats have been shown to be far from idle, it can hardly be surprising that people jump to unfortunate conclusions when they are the subject of terrorist outrages. Experience might well have told them that 90% of the time they’d be right. But this does not at all amount to hatred of Muslims (whom, most Westerners of all religions and political persuasions are well-aware, are by far the most populous of victims of Islamist terror).
Rather than racing to the lowest common denominator, LFF would do well to rise above such cynicism (regardless of whoever else you feel is guilty of it) and consider whether mud-slinging is quite the most appropriate response to a tragedy that has befallen scores of innocent victims and their families.
Anon E Mouse
Hz – Sorry the link to Kevin Meagher’s posts refusing to call the IRA terrorists is here:
https://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/02/tory-run-hammersmith-council-community-funding-cuts/