The Kind of Terrorism You Should Try to Understand
Shorter Jerusalem Post: Just because the killer in Norway wasn’t a Muslim shouldn’t distract us from the important project of hating Muslims.
There is no way that a sentence that starts with “While there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway…” is going to end up anywhere that any civilized person wants to be.
It is a shame that a muslin didn’t commmit this atrocity. It might have led to another war. Oh, well….
I read it more as “While I don’t agree with his methods, he has a good point.” Despicable.
How can that writer, being from Israel, fail to understand that the aftermath of a terrorist attack is the absolute worst time to make an argument sympathetic to his cause? This person must have encountered similar “Yes, but…” statements, in the media or wherever, lamenting an act of Hamas or PLO terrorism but then holding forth about the righteousness of the Palestinian cause. How can someone not get what a bad idea that is?
There’s this too: Norway, a country so oriented toward promoting peace, where the Muslim population is forecast to increase from 3 percent to 6.5% of the population by 2030, should heed Sen’s incisive analysis. What’s the breakdown in Israel?
It should read, “Norway, a country in which Mossad agents murdered a waiter in 1973 at Lillehammer, has the poor taste to question the motives of Israel from time to time.”
Apparently, you’ve never read the Post. They are the War on Islam Central and the idea they would have perspective or empathy is silly.
My thoughts on similar thoughts from the execrable Bruce Bawer here.
Most of the comments on the “Eurabia” blogs reacting to the Norway shooting/bombing are an unappealing mix of victim-blaming and Euro-bashing — this is now a very insecure group of people. There’s deep absurdity in their “vision,” and this weekend only intensifies that.
DU
DU
I absolutely agree.
That said, it’s worth noting that in matters of Muslim terrorism, papers like the Guardian routinely run editorials and comment pieces that essentially run to the same format “Obviously there’s no justification for this, BUT… [1,000 words of mitigation, pleas for understanding, context etc]” and I have to say that when that happens I don’t see much rage from many of the people who are now going purple in the face over the JPost piece.
It works both ways, of course.
While that’s true I think the objective of the ‘typical Guardian editorial’ can be roughly summarised as ‘Jihadi terrorism is of course despicable, but lets not tar all Muslims with the same brush or jump into bed with right-wing political extremists inciting anti-Muslim pogroms’ which, IMO, is a noble endeavor. The objective of this editorial is ‘right-wing terrorism is of course despicable, but anti-Muslim pogroms remain a good idea.’ I think that’s less so.
Are you sure you aren’t confusing a plea not to attribute guilt to people for being of the same ethnic or religious group as a terrorist with an argument in favor of a terrorists’ political ideology?
Because I see the former argument made all the time, but not the latter, in cases of terrorism committed by Muslims.
My experience with the sort of genius political analysis provided by the JP is centered on having the poor luck to discover Tom Rose on local radio.
Here is the playbook of JP CEO
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-is-tom-rose.html
I suppose it is bit reassuring, in a truly twisted way, to know that other country’s conservatives are just as vile and loathsome as our own.
Are Muslims the newest protected group?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Clearly, it’s not left-leaning, labor-friendly political activists.
Shh. Don’t mention that part. It was a “summer camp.”
The first ny wife heard about this was on an NPR news update on Saturday. I had to tell her that the bomb was planted near the PM’s office and the shootings were at a Labor Party summer camp. Nope, nothing political here.
The question there is regarding the political nature of a summer camp, would we find this more justifiable, if that is your motive, if this was a “Young Republican” summer camp or a “Young Democrats” summer camp? That camp was deliberately chosen, as was the location of the bomb BECAUSE of Breivik’s right wing ideology. The whole attack was political, with right-wing extremism being the primary motivation. And for any country in the world advocating, although using more moderate language, the same policy as a terrorist/mass murderer, should make us all aghast and disgusted, no matter the source.
[...] Robert Farley at Lawyers, Gun$ and Money pointed to this piece from the Jerusalem Post which highlights the reigning ideology of right wing extremism: multiculturalism is always the culprit of violent extremism and, therefore, even when such violence is planned and committed by one of ‘us’ – in this case, a blond, blue eyed, ‘Christian’ Norwegian – it is truly the fault of the insidious other: Now along with their dogged pursuit of peace, the Norwegians are also coming to grips with the reality of evil in their midst. It would be wrongheaded, however, to allow the fact that this terrible tragedy was perpetrated by a right-wing extremist to detract attention from the underlying problems faced not only by Norway, but by many Western European nations… Perhaps Brievik’s inexcusable act of vicious terror should serve not only as a warning that there may be more elements on the extreme Right willing to use violence to further their goals, but also as an opportunity to seriously reevaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere. While there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway, discontent with multiculturalism’s failure must not be delegitimatized or mistakenly portrayed as an opinion held by only the most extremist elements of the Right. [...]
[...] Robert Farley at Lawyers, Gun$ and Money pointed to this piece from the Jerusalem Post which highlights the reigning ideology of right wing extremism: multiculturalism is always the culprit of violent extremism and, therefore, even when such violence is planned and committed by one of ‘us’ – in this case, a blond, blue eyed, ‘Christian’ Norwegian – it is truly the fault of the insidious other: Now along with their dogged pursuit of peace, the Norwegians are also coming to grips with the reality of evil in their midst. It would be wrongheaded, however, to allow the fact that this terrible tragedy was perpetrated by a right-wing extremist to detract attention from the underlying problems faced not only by Norway, but by many Western European nations… Perhaps Brievik’s inexcusable act of vicious terror should serve not only as a warning that there may be more elements on the extreme Right willing to use violence to further their goals, but also as an opportunity to seriously reevaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere. While there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway, discontent with multiculturalism’s failure must not be delegitimatized or mistakenly portrayed as an opinion held by only the most extremist elements of the Right. [...]
While there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway, discontent with multiculturalism’s failure must not be delegitimatized or mistakenly portrayed as an opinion held by only the most extremist elements of the Right.
Just those elements willing to kill 400% of the “normal” annual murder rate for their entire country in a single day. Nothing extremist about that. Calling that “extremist” would be the real tragedy.
Or, shorter, Farley is right.
Farley is right
Though far too polite about it.
I haven’t gotten a chance to read Amartya Sen’s book on the subject yet, but I’ve read essays and interviews dealing with his views on the topic, and they don’t seem to support this essay’s line of thought.
Has anyone read the book, and is there something I am missing in Sen’s work that makes sense within the context of this article?
I, for one, would like to see a formal citation to Sen’s alleged taking of this position. I read a fair amount of Sen’s writings, although by no means all or even most of it, and I can’t think of anything that could be reasonably interpreted as claiming what he’s alleged to claim here. Whatever he said, I pretty strongly suspect at a minimum it’s quite a bit more complicated and qualified than it’s presented here.
Unless Sen has had a head injury that completely altered his personality and previous positions (like those taken in Identity and Violence), I have no idea what they’re talking about. He sounds like Sam Huntington which, no.
“Did I say Amartya Sen? Sorry, I meant Geert Wilders. I mix those two up all the time.”
The same principle applies to any sentence beginning with the phrase “I’m not a racist, but”.
“There is certainly great revulsion at the murder of young people. However . . . ,”
I couldn’t help but think of your post when I saw this truly revolting excerpt at Digby’s page. A sentence that begins thusly continues . . .
“I suppose it is possible that in the long run European elites will understand that the glorious multicultural future will not be attained without a great deal of bloodletting and realize they will have to change their ways.”
Kevin MacDonald, apparently a professor of something.
Apparently they’ve ‘clarified’ their position, though the ‘clarification’ amounts to ‘we of course believe massacring almost 100 people is wrong.’ So that’s alright then.
Anyone else see this? There’s a comment box, and it says “Anonymous” where the commenter’s name goes, but the rest of the box is just blank. No thought whatsoever.